RADHESHYAM Vs. NARAYANI DEVI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-plaintiff, Radheshyam, is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.8.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Chomu, District Jaipur, whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant-plaintiff. He is equally aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2012 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Chomu, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, and has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 21.8.2009.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Radheshyam had filed a suit for specific performance against the respondent-defendants wherein he had claimed that on 11.2.1991 he and respondent Nos.1 to 3 had entered into an agreement for sale of property in khasra No.1474, Rakba 15 Biswa in which the respondents had 1/4th share. According to the agreement, the respondents were supposed to have the sale-deed registered after getting the share in the said khasra number mutated in their name. Their shares were mutated in their name on 26.10.2007. But despite his willing to perform his part of the contract, the respondents refused to get the sale-deed registered. Although the respondent Nos.1 to 3 did not file a written-statement, respondent-defendant No.8, namely the State through the Tehsildar did file the written-statement. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate framed four issues. In order to buttress his case the appellant-plaintiff examined two witnesses, and submitted fifteen documents. The respondent-defendants neither examined any witness nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, by judgment and decree dated 21.8.2009 the learned Magistrate dismissed the suit filed by the appellant.

(3.) Since the appellant was aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, he filed a regular first appeal before the learned Judge. However, by judgment and decree dated 31.8.2012 the learned Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 21.8.2009 as mentioned above. Hence this second appeal before this Court.