OM PRAKASH Vs. GAYATRI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 96 C. P. C. arises out of the judgment and decree dated 31. 5. 1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Ajmer whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the plaintiff's sit.

(2.) PLAINTIFF Om Prakash filed a suit against the defendants for specific performance with the averments that late Gopi Chand, husband of defendant No. 1 and father of defendants No. 2 to 7 was the sole owner of the property described in para No. 1 of the plaint. After the death of Gopi Chand, the defendants being legal heirs of late Gopi Chand, became owner of the suit property. The defendant No. 1 at her own and in the capacity as authorised representative of efendants No. 2 to 7 continued to maintain the property and used to receive rent from the tenants including plaintiff residing in the suit premises. Some of the portion of the suit property as described in para 3 of the plaint was on rent with the plaintiff and plaintiff and his mother Smt. Kastoori Devi was residing therein and paying rent of Rs. 28/- per month. In the remaining portion at the upper floor, Sumer Chand Jain, husband of defendant No. 8 was in possession as tenant. The plaintiff further alleged that defendant No. 1 executed an agreement in his favour on 5. 12. 1982 at Ajmer, thereby agreeing to sell the property mentioned in para No. 1 of the plaint for a consideration of Rs. 18,000/- and received a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as an advance against sale consideration. The defendant assured the plaintiff that she will execute a sale deed within a period of one year and shall also hand over vacant possession of the suit property and that she will receive the remaining amount of sale consideration at the time of registry. In case of failure on her part, the defendant granted liberty to the plaintiff to take legal action.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence and material on record and the impugned judgment.