MANGAL SINGH Vs. CHAMPA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 17.03.1986 passed by Additional District Judge, Bali, whereby, the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent -plaintiff has been decreed and it has been directed that plaintiff would pay or deposit the balance consideration of Rs.26,000/ - within a period of two months, where after, the defendant would execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and hand over the possession of the land.

(2.) WHEN this appeal came up for admission, the same was admitted on 12.05.1986 and it was ordered that the execution of decree shall remain stayed. The interim order was confirmed on 25.08.1987 directing as under: -

(3.) THE defendant contested the suit by filing written statement; it was, inter alia, submitted that plaintiff failed to perform contract at the stipulated time i.e. by 15.08.1980; it was denied that plaintniff's brother Keval Chand and Hasti Mal came to his house on 14.08.1980 with balance consideration of Rs.26,000/ -; he was ready and willing to execute the deed and get it registered as per the agreement on 15.08.1980; as on 15.08.1980 there was a public holiday, he came to Bali on 16.08.1980 and plaintiff's brother Keval Chand also came there; when he demanded Rs.26,000/ - as per the agreement, the plaintiff tried to avoid the contract and, therefore, the registration of the deed could not take place though he was present in the Court till 05:00 PM; the averments relating to production of passbook and previous sale deed within a day or two were denied; on the other hand, it was claimed that it was made clear to the plaintiff's brother Keval Chand at the time of agreement that the previous sale deed had been lost and the plaintiff's brother and his advocate had already seen the Khatoni and settlement Parcha, the fact about carrying the balance consideration of Rs.26,000/ - was denied; it was claimed that as the time stipulated in the agreement had expired, he was no longer bound by the contract and was prepared to return the amount of Rs.1,000/ -. Ultimately, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. The trial court framed four issues: