MOOL RAJ Vs. MOOL RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD and gone through the record.

(2.) RESPONDENT Mool Raj, hereinafter called plaintiff, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of immovable property executed in his favour by the appellant, hereinafter called defendant on 25.2.1997. As per agreement, which is stated to be executed only by the appellant- defendant and not by the respondent- plaintiff, the appellant- defendant received the entire sale consideration of Rs. 11,000/- and put the respondent- plaintiff in possession and agreed to execute the sale deed after the mutation in respect of the property agreed to be sold was attested in his (defendant's) favour. Plaintiff alleged that he came to know in the year 2000 that mutation had been attested in favour of the defendant, Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? but despite that he (the defendant) did not come forward to execute the sale deed in his favour, despite the fact that he had received the consideration in full.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Three submissions have been made by him, which are as follows:- (i) The agreement is not enforceable in law, because, it is not executed by the plaintiff and is in the form of a unilateral writing. (ii) The suit was barred by time, inasmuch as the agreement was executed on 25.2.1997 and the mutation had been attested in favour of the defendant on 29.9.1997 and the limitation even if counted from the date of the attestation of the mutation, stood expired long before the institution of the suit. (The date of the institution of the suit is 10.9.2002). (iii) Plaintiff did not take the plea nor he did lead any evidence that he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, in terms of Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act. ...3...