KAILASH CHANDRA Vs. VIJAY SHANKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.11.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Div.), Dungla, District Chittorgarh, whereby the suit filed by the appellants -plaintiffs for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction has been dismissed and against the appellate judgment and decree dated 9.11.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, whereby the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs -appellants has been rejected.

(2.) THE appellants filed a suit on 24.4.2004 seeking specific performance of contract dated 26.5.1981 said to have been executed between the respondents Vijay Shankar and Rameshwar Lal with the appellants' father Kishan Lal for sale of their land for a sum of Rs. 14,000/ - and under the agreement a sum of Rs. 3,900/ - was received by Vijay Shankar on the date of agreement and subsequently, Rameshwar Lal also received a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - and rest of the amount was to be received at the time of execution of the sale deed, possession was handed - over on the same date. It was inter -alia claimed in the plaint that earlier their father sought execution of sale deed and after the death of appellants' father, they requested the defendants to execute the sale deed, however, they kept on postponing the same and, therefore, notice dated 18.2.2004 was got issued, thereafter also, the agreement was not honoured. It was prayed that the suit be decreed and permanent injunction be issued against the defendants not to interfere in their possession.

(3.) THE trial court framed 08 issues and after evidence was led by the plaintiffs and despite filing affidavit, the defendants did not appear in the witness -box, after hearing the submissions the suit was dismissed. The trial court came to the conclusion that no details / specification / boundaries regarding the land was indicated in the agreement (Ex. -1), facts relating to possession was also not indicated and, therefore, the execution of the agreement and payment was not proved, after so -called execution of the agreement in the year 1981, the notice for the first time was given in the year 2004 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and the suit was barred by limitation as prescribed under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963.