KANCHAN BAI Vs. KHETSIDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to this revision petition are as follows: As per the plaint averments, one Daulat Ram was the owner of plot no. 143 and half portion of plot no. 144 situated at Bazar no. 3, Bhopalganj Mandi. Bhilwara. He mortgaged the aforesaid plots to Bala Bux, Kedai mal Banshi Dhar, Ram Narain and Bhagat Ram, all sons of Shri Ram Agarwal, on 24. 3. 43 for a sum of Rs. 2200/ -. THE mortgage-deed was registered on 26. 3,43. THE possession of the aforesaid plots was transferred to the mortgagees. One of the stipulations in the mortgage-deed was that the mortgagees could make such constructions on the said plots as they liked and the plots could be re-deemed only on payment of the mortgage money and the costs of improvement. It is averred that on 24. 3. 43 itself mortgagor Daulat Ram executed a separate agreement in favour of the mortgagees and reiterated the stipulations that the mortgagees would be free to raise constructions on the plots as they liked and after completion of the house on the plots the mortgagor shall receive Rs. 11/- from the mortgagees and shall execute a sale-deed in respect of the aforesaid property. It is alleged that the mortgagees raised constructions upon the said plots between the years 1943 and 1947.

(2.) IT was further averred that the mortgagees paid a sum of Rs. 11/- to mortgagor Daulat Ram on 17. 12. 47 and Daulat Ram made an oral sale of the disputed property in favour of the mortgagees under the Mewar Laws and the mortgagees became full owners of the suit property and since then they were in possession of the said Haveli as its owners.

(3.) IT was pleaded that Smt. Kanchan Bai or her predecessor in interest Daulat Ram or legal heirs of Daulat Ram never refused to fulfill the contract of sale dated 24. 3. 43 nor did they ever give a notice to the plaintiffs refusing specific performance of the said contract. IT was averred that since the contract of sale did not prescribe any period within which the contract was to be performed, the limitation, did not start running and as such suit was within limitation within article 54 of the Indian Limitation Act.