NATHAN Vs. NOKHU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was admitted on 12-10-1998 on the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the plaintiff/respondent can compel the vendor /appellant No. 2 to perform his part of the contract after the expiry of the date of the alleged agreement i.e. 25-2-1989? 2. What is the legal effect of the writing dated 26-12-1990? 3. If, the time is the essence of the contract whether plaintiff / respondent has performed his part of contract, if not its effect? 4. Whether the plaintiff / respondent hay proved his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract in the evidence and upto the date of decreeing the suit, if not its effect? 5. What is the effect of material contradictions in the pleadings and evidence? 6. Whether appellant No. 2 is a bona fide purchaser after the expiry of the date of alleged agreement i.e. 25-2-1989? 7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff was filed within time? 8. Whether the alleged agreements or writings are genuine or not?

(2.) Appellants were the defendants in the trial Court and respondent was the plaintiff. Both sides are being referred to as such in this judgment.

(3.) A suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff against the defendants on the plea that parties entered into an agreement to sell on 25-2-1988 (Ex. PW2/A). By means of this agreement, defendant No. 1 Rohlu agreed to sell his land measuring 3- 2-0 bighas as detailed in the plaint for a consideration of Rs. 9500/-. At the time of entering into this agreement, Rs. 3800/- were received by defendant No. 1 from the plaintiff. Balance amount was payable after deducting Rs. 66.50 being the mortgage money at the time of executing and registration of the sale deed of the suit land by the said defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Time for execution and registration of sale deed was fixed upto 25-2-1989. On 3-5-1988 defendant No. 1 demanded a further sum of Rs. 1600/- which was paid to him by the plaintiff. A further agreement was entered into between the parties on this date i.e. 3-5-1988 (Ex. PW2/B). Now a sum of Rs. 4100/- after deducting the mortgage money was to be received by defendant No. 1 from the plaintiff at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. Time of execution and registration of sale deed was also extended as per this document. Plaintiff claimed that he was always ready and willing and was still ready to perform his part of the contract by making payment of the balance sale consideration which in fact was tendered by him to defendant No. 1. However, needful was not done by the said defendant. In addition to the aforesaid amounts, a further sum of Rs. 3100/- was received by defendant No. 1 on 26-12-1990 which fact is acknowledged in writing. Further case of the plaintiff was that instead of executing the sale deed and getting it registered on receipt of the balance amount, with a view to defeat his claim, defendant No. 1 executed sale deed (Ex. DA) in favour of defendant No. 2 for and ostensible consideration of Rs. 38,000/- He further claimed that defendant No. 2 was well aware regarding existence of the agreement between the parties, i.e. plaintiff on one side and defendant No. 1 on the other. Despite this, sale deed was executed as above between the defendants. Thus plaintiff was not bound by the sale deed, which was illegal, null and void.