KISHAN SINGH Vs. SURAJ PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Ajmer dated 29-3-72.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows: THE sale-deed in favour of the appellant Ghisaram in respect of the property-described in para No. 1 of the plaint was written on 22-1-66 on behalf of Surajprakash, R. C. Bhargava, Santosh Kumar, Rama Bhargava, Laxman Kumar and minor Sudhir Kumar sons of late Pt. Shyamsunder Bhargava and their mother Mst. Kalawati. THE sale deed was signed by the three sons of late Pt. Shyamsunder, namely, Surajprakash, R. G. Bhargava and Santosh Kumar only and not by others. By this sale-deed the property was sold for Rs. 19000/- out of which Rs. 5000/- were paid as earnest money. THE vendee got the sale-deed compulsorily registered so far as the three executants, were concerned on 16-8-67, but did not pay the remaining sale-price amounting to Rs. 14000. THE three vendor-executants, namely, Surajprakash, R. G. Bhargava and Santoshkumar thereupon instituted a suit out of which this appeal arises on 14-8-70 for the recovery of Rs. 14000/- as principal and Rs. 5000/- by way of interest total Rs. 19,000 against the vendee Ghisaram. Various pleas were raised in defence. It was alleged that because the plaintiffs neither got the sale deed signed by other vendors nor they got it registered, the suit for the recovery of unpaid purchase money was not maintainable. It was also pleaded that the plaintiffs did not get the sale-deed registered? and when the defendant applied for compulsory registration, they put obstacles and therefore they disentitled themselves to the claim for the sale-price or interest thereof. It was then pleaded that since the defendant had not been given the possession of the property, actual or constructive, and because the plaintiffs were obstructing the defendant through others from getting the possession of the property and were also recovering rent from the tenants occupying the property the plaintiffs cannot claim interest on the unpaid sale-price. It was further pleaded that plaintiff Surajprakash executed the sale-deed in the capacity of Manager, Joint Hindu Family and as guardian of the minor Sudhirkumar, but because he had not filed the suit in that capacity, the suit was not maintainable. It was also pleaded that the suit was barred by time. None of the pleas raised by the defendant vendee found favour with the learned Civil Judge except that the plaintiffs were not entitled to interest as they had realised rent from the tenants. He accordingly decreed the suit for Rs. 14000/- against the defendant-vendee and kept a charge on the vended property till the amount of Rs. 14000/- was paid to the plaintiffs; Aggrieved by the said decree, the defendant Ghisaram has preferred this appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, Ghisaram died. He is now represented by his legal representatives.