SMT. SHANTI BAI Vs. UDAI RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The instant appeal under Sec. 96 Code of Civil Procedure is preferred by appellant defendant assailing validity and propriety of judgment and decree dated 28.8.2002 passed by Additional District Judge, Pali decreeing the suit by passing the decree for specific performance of the contract.

(2.) The facts in brief are that plaintiff respondent Shri Udai Raj preferred a suit for specific performance of the agreement said to be entered between the parties for sale of a piece of land in village Nadole, District Pali. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that the defendant is having a piece of land in village Nadole, District Pali and she wanted to sale the same. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with defendant with regard to sale of aforesaid plot at the consideration of Rs. 66,000.00. The parties entered into the agreement in this regard on 1.11.1995 at Mumbai, as both the parties normally reside at Mumbai. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 56,000.00 through cheque No. 174418, Bhuleshwar Branch, Union Bank of India, against settled consideration of Rs. 66,000.00. Reference of this payment was given in the agreement arrived between the parties. It was also agreed between the parties that remaining amount of Rs. 10,000.00 shall be paid to the plaintiff at the time of registry and she, in her turn, hand over all original documents of the property in question and also take necessary steps to get the sale deed registered in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff the defendant was ignoring the performance of the agreement and, therefore, he served a notice dated 4.1.1996 through his counsel and the same was replied by the defendant through her counsel in which she denied the existence of agreement to sale. The plaintiff in these circumstances preferred the civil suit seeking a decree for specific performance. The trial Court on basis of the pleadings framed five issues as under:-

(3.) In support of the suit three persons viz. Udai Raj (PW-1), Balchand (PW-2) and S. Srivastava (PW-3) deposed before the trial Court. The plaintiff also placed on record seven documents marked as Ex. 1 to Ex. 7 to substantiate the claim. The appellant defendant did not produce any evidence in defence.