RATTAN CHAND Vs. PAWAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the defendants, who are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 2.9.2002 passed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 139 of 1995 whereby he reversed the judgment and decree dated 15.9.1995 passed by learned Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 360 -I of 1991.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 11.4.1986 on the ground that the land comprised in Khata No. 6 min, Khatauni No. 15 min, Khasra No. 174 measuring 121.67 sq. mtrs. situated in Tika Up Mahal, Choula Khurd, Tappa Bajuri, Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit land) has been shown in the ownership and possession of the defendants in the revenue record. It was averred in the plaint that the defendants agreed to sell 51.67 sq. mtrs. land out of the suit land shown as Khasra No. 174/1 in favour of deceased Sh. Jagar Nath, predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs vide agreement dated 11.4.1986. However, the said Jagar Nath died in the year 1990. It was averred that as per the agreement it was agreed upon that the defendants would get the exchange entered in the revenue record and in case it is not accepted or mutation is not sanctioned then the deceased Jagar Nath would be entitled to get the sale deed executed. Further case of the plaintiffs is that at the time of execution of the agreement, a sum of Rs. 8456/ - was paid by their predecessor -in -interest to the defendants in cash. The mutation of exchange was rejected somewhere in 1988 -89. Thereafter, they were always ready and willing to perform their part of agreement as they kept the money required for registration expenses and stamps etc., but it is the defendants, particularly defendant No. 1, who was not ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The plaintiffs had to serve the defendants with the notice in the year 1987 to get the mutation attested but they failed to do so. The defendant No. 3 was also requested time and again to execute the sale deed but he paid no heed to the requests of the plaintiffs. It was averred that the plaintiffs got the knowledge of the said agreement after the death of Jagar Nath in the month of October, 1991 when the defendant No. 3 refused to execute the sale deed, hence the suit.

(3.) THE plaintiffs filed the replication to the written statements filed by the defendants and denied all the allegations made in the written statements and reaffirmed the averments made in the plaint.