RAMESHWAR Vs. RAM RATAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil first appeal under section 96 CPC has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31.8.1994 passed by the learned District Judge, Tonk in Civil Original Suit No. 8/78 whereby the suit of appellants-plain- tiffs was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the suit was filed by the present appellants-plaintiffs stating that they were residing in the suit property since 1964. The original owner Rampal started living in Tatanagar. As desired by Rampal, they were keeping tenants in some parts of the property and after recovering rent from them they were passing it on to Rampal. After the death of Rampal in 1969, they were passing on the rent to his son Ramesh Chand who on 3.7.1971 took a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as loan from them and executed a pro-note in their favour along with an agreement to the effect that the rent being recovered by them would be adjusted against the amount of interest on the aforesaid amount of loan. It was also pleaded by them that on 11.7.1971 he took a further loan of Rs. 3,000/- from them and executed a pro-note in their favour. On 7.2.1978 they purchased the said house from Ramesh Chand for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for which an agreement to sell was executed between the parties. They received a notice on 18.4.1978 from Ramratan to the effect that he had purchased the said house on 15.3.1978 from Ramesh Chand and Premlata through a registered sale-deed, whereupon they got a notice served on 11.5.1978 to Ramesh Chand to get the sale-deed executed in-pursuance to the agreement for sale dated 7.2.1978. As he failed to do so, they filed a suit for specific performance of the contract. The suit was contested by the vendee Ramratan and by vendor Ramesh Chand and Premlata by filing separate written statements and denying the averments made in the plaint. The trial Court framed issues stemming from the pleadings of the parties and after taking evidence of both the parties and affording an opportunity of hearing dismissed the suit vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31.8.1984 which is under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the admission of this appeal and have also perused the impugned judgment as well as the record.