LAWS(RAJ)-1974-7-4

DEENANATH Vs. CHUNNILAL

Decided On July 31, 1974
DEENANATH Appellant
V/S
CHUNNILAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by plaintiff Deenanath against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Udaipur, dated 30-11-72 dismissing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell certain agricultural land.

(2.) ON 22-2-64 defendanc-respondent Chunnilal entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell his khatedari rights in 11 bighas 6 bighas of land of Khata No. 223 situated at village Ayad, tehsil Girwa district Udaipur for Rs. 13,000. In pursuance of the said agreement, the defendant. respondent received Rs. 1000 from the plaintiff as part payment of the sale-price and executed the agreement Ex. A/1 in favour of the plaintiff. It was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff shall pay the balance of the sale-price at the time of the registration of the sale-deed. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the defendant on some pretext or other avoided to execute the sale-deed. The plaintiff therefore served a notice on 29-12-65 calling upon the defendant to receive the balance of the sale-price and execute the sale-deed and get it registered in his favour. The defendant gave a false reply to the notice on 14-1-66 and declined to execute the sale-deed in accordance with the terms of the agreement Ex. A/1. The plaintiff thereupon instituted the present suit against the defendant on 5-12-67 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 22-2-64 and, in the alternative, claimed Rs. 12,000 as damages for breach of the contract.

(3.) ANOTHER case relied on by the learned Civil Judge is Juturi Nagiah's case (supra ). In that case the contract of sale was entered into by defendant No. 1 who was the managing member of the family but in that suit, his major sons were impleaded as defendants Nos. 2 to 4 and his minor sons as defendants Nos. 5 to 8 and the plaintiff sought the relief of specific performance not only against the executant but also against his sons. This case is thus clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case.