PREM RAJ Vs. ROOPCHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT -plaintiff has laid this first appeal under Section 96 CPC to assail the impugned judgment and decree dated 26th of September, 1989 passed by District Judge, Merta (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby his suit for specific performance of contract has been dismissed.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY stated the facts of the case are that appellant -plaintiff laid a suit for specific performance of contract against Roopchand, Kishandas and Badriprasad, inter alia, on the ground that a house owned by Ramchandra S/o Ramnarayan with one shop was purchased by Kishandas and Badriprasad by a registered sale -deed dated 8th of September, 1971 and subsequently for the same property respondent Badriprasad also executed an agreement to sale in favour of the appellant and the requisite title deeds were also handed over to the appellant. It is also averred that the entire transaction completed but documentation and registration was delayed on account of the fact that Badriprasad left Prabatsar for his personal work and to participate in religious activities like performance of Ramlila. Subsequently, when Roopchand was in need of premises, appellant disposed of the said property to him and the possession was also handed over to Roopchand. It was an admitted fact that at the time of the aforesaid transaction between appellant and Roopchand, appellant was not having valid title, therefore, he made endeavour to call upon the vendors from whom he had agreed to purchase the property for executing registered sale -deed in his favour, however, despite repeated requests, respondents did not pay any heed to his requests and the requisite document was not executed. The entire dispute cropped up because the appellant failed to confer valid title on Roopchand in want of his own perfect title and that too eventually led to filing of the suit. The appellant has produced requisite documents about enforcement of agreement to sale by indicating that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

(3.) LEARNED trial Court, on basis of pleadings, settled 15 issues for determination and parties led their evidence. On behalf of appellant, in all, eight witnesses appeared and testified on oath. That apart, documents were produced to substantiate the case. To counter the evidence of the appellant, D.W.1 Roopchand himself appeared in the witness box and testified on oath and also examined D.W.2 Ramesh Thakur, handwriting expert so also produced documents.