NARAYAN LAL Vs. KISHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has filed this appeal u/o 43 Rule 1 (a) C. P. C. against the order of Shri Radheshyam Gupta, District Judge, Sirohi dated 19. 7. 95 in Civil Suit No. 20/94 whereby the application filed by the defendants respondents 5 to 11 u/o 7 Rule 11 (d) C. P. C. was allowed.

(2.) THE material facts to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal may shortly be stated as follows. THE plaintiff-appellants filed a suit against the defendants for seeking specific performance of the contract dated 25. 7. 96 and also for permanent injunction with the following averments. THE plaintiffs took the land in dispute described in para 4 of the plaint on lease from defendants 1 to 4 on 1. 11. 84 at a monthly rent of Rs. 100/ -. Subsequently the above defendants at the request of the plaintiff agreed to sell the above land to the latter for a sum of Rs. 60,000/ -. THE defendants obtained a part of the consideration Rs. 5,000/- on 25. 7. 86. Simultaneously with the execution of the agreement for sale, the plaintiff were put into possession indifferent of the above land. THE remaining consideration was to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed. THE defendants further agreed to execute the document and get it registered upto 25. 7. 94. THE plaintiffs further averred that on account of some necessity a sum of Rs. 2,000/- was also taken by the defendants from the plaintiff on 11. 8. 88. An entry of this transaction was recorded on the back of the document. THE plaintiffs have been using the above land even before the document was executed and they are running a hotel. After the execution of the agreement some residential portion was also constructed. THE plaintiff averred that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and offered Rs. 3,000/- to the defendants but the defendants, on account of escalation in the land price, showed unwillingness to perform their contractual obligations and did not do so upto 25. 7. 94. THE plaintiffs, therefore, served the regi- stered notice to the defendants 1 to 4 asking the latter to perform their of the contract. THE notice reached the defendants on 19. 7. 94 but the latter did not think it proper to reply to the same. THE defendants on the contrary wrote to the plaintiffs to vacate the land before 21. 7. 94 otherwise they will be vacated forcibly. THE plaintiff further alleged that on 22. 7. 94 defendant no. 10 as representative of the other defendants approached the former and informed that Narayan Singh s/o Manak Singh has purchased the land comprised in khasra no. 194 (new) from Panni w/o deceased Nopa. Narayan Singh has expired and defendants 5 to 9 are the legal representatives of the said Narayan Singh. THE plaintiffs alleged that defendant no. 10, who was the Police Inspector of Mt. Abu, being an influential person, can create problem for the plaintiffs. THE plaintiffs, therefore, also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating any nuisance or obstruction in their peaceful possession of the above land. THE plaintiffs in para 21 (C) prayed for the following rules: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondents.