MANI Vs. KISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment dated 12-3-92 passed by the learned single Judge, by which the learned single Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and maintained the decree and judgment dated 5-12-87 passed by the District Judge, Churu decreeing the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of the contract.

(2.) Plaintiff Kishan Lal, on 5-8-78, filed a suit for specific performance of the contract against defendant . Ganesh Narain alias Ganesh Ram in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Churu. The suit was based on the agreement (Ex. 1) 16-11-70, by which defendant Ganesh Narain agreed to sell a Nohra situated in Churu for a consideration of Rs. 11,000/- and took Rs. 2,000/- as advance from the palintiff. It was further agreed that the payment of the remaining amount of Rs.9,000/- will be made within a period of one month from the date of execution of the agreement and on the receipt of this amount, Ganesh Narain alias Ganesh Ram will execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The Nohra in question was adjacent to the house of the plaintiff and, therefore, the plaintiff wanted to purchase it. The defendant neither took the remaining amount of Rs. 9,000/- nor executed the sale deed. A registered notice through his advocate was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant, which was received by the defendant on 12-12-70. A telegram was, also, later on given to the defendant. The plaintiff, also, offered the remaining amount of Rs. 9,000/- to the defendant on 14-12-70, 15-12-70 and 16-12-70, but the defendant did not accept the same. It was, also, averred in the plaint that the plaintiff was always ready and willing and still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and on account of non-execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, he has suffered a loss and, therefore, he claims Rs. 2,500/- on this count.

(3.) The defendant, in his written statement, denied the execution of the agreement and stated in the written statement that neither he agreed to sell the Nohra in question to the plaintiff or to any other person nor he took Rs. 2,000/- as advance. It has been further stated in the written statement that the plaintiff forcibly wanted to take possession over the Nohra in question and on account of this Nohra, the dispute exists between the parties for the last about ten to fifteen years and civil as well as criminal litigations are going on between them. To resolve the dispute between the parties. Shri Kishan Lal Saraf was appointed as an arbitrator and an agreement was arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant on the asking of Shri Kishan Lal Saraf - the arbitrator, on which he appended his signatures and not on Ex. 1. He also, denied the receipt of any sum as advance. It has further been averred in the written statement that the alleged agreement Ex. 1 is a void contract and on the basis of it, no suit can be filed.