ANUP KRISHNA KAUL Vs. JAGDISH SWAROOP AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-defendant No. 2 has preferred this first appeal against the judgment and decree of specific performance dated 2-4-1994 passed by learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 55/1983 (146/1980).

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit on 16-12-1980 against three defendants for specific performance of an agreement of sale of a house located at Ajmer executed in his favour on 24-7-1979 at Jaipur. The plaintiff's case, in brief is, that Smt. Vishnu Maya Kaul mother of all the three defendants by an agreement dated 24-7-1979 agreed to sell her house bearing AMC No. 41/32 situated at Meyo College Road, Ajmer to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The plaintiff on the same day paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- vide cheque to Smt. Vishnu Maya Kaul. The balance of the sale price was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar Ajmer at the time of registration of the sale deed on or before the first day of September, 1979. As per the terms of the agreement, Smt. Vishnu Maya Kaul was to obtain 'No Objection Certificate' from the competent authority. Smt. Vishnu Maya Kaul expired on 3-8-1979. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 being the sons and the defendant No. 3 being her daughter were requested by the plaintiff to accept the balance of the sale price and to execute the sale deed after obtaining 'No Objection Certificate'. The plaintiff was at all relevant times and is still prepared to perform his part of the contract. He also served a notice by registered post dated 29-8-1979 and served another notice by registered post on 26-5-1980 along with a draft of the sale deed. In reply to the notice dated 26-5-1980 Dr. S. P. Wanchoo informed the plaintiff that the defendant Nos. 1 and 3 were prepared to execute the sale deed but the defendant No. 2 was not willing to do so. Hence the suit for specific performance.

(3.) The defendant Nos. 1 and 3 in their joint written statement submitted on 19-5-1981 admitted the plaintiffs claim with a further plea that it was the defendant No. 2 who was not prepared to join them in making application for obtaining the 'No Objection Certificate' and to execute the sale deed in accordance with the terms of the agreement executed by their mother.