KANHAIYA LAL Vs. JHAMAT MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal in a suit for specific performance of" the contract of sale of 1/2. share of the suit-shop. The plaintiff's suit was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirohi on 18-12-76 and the defendant was directed to execute the sale-deed of his share of the shop described in para 1 of the plaint in favour of the plaintiff on payment of a sum of Rs. 12,500/- by the defendant before the Sub-Registrar. It was also directed that the defendant shall bear the expense of stamp-papers, registration etc. Two months' time was allowed to execute the sale-deed and give vacant possession of the shop to the plaintiff.

(2.) THE plaintiff Jhamatmal instituted a suit with the allegations that the parties to the suit purchased the suit-shop as joint property and were carrying on business in partnership in the name and style of M/s Sheoganj Engineering Works. As the disputes arose, so, through arbitration of their own elder brother Shittaldass, the partnership was dissolved and it was agreed that the defendant would purchase half share of the plaintiff in the shop in question by paying a sum of Rs. 12,500/-on or before 19-10-74. It was further stipulated that if the defendant Kanhaiyalal fails to purchase half share upto 19-10-74, then, the defendant would vacate the shop and deliver possession thereof to the plaintiff Jhamatmal and would execute the sale deed and get the same registered at his expense on payment of Rs. 12,500/- by Jhamatmal. It was also stipulated between the parties that M/s Sheoganj Engineering Works will remain in possession of the rented shop situated at Holiwala Market, Sheoganj for business and the defendant Kanhaiyalal would be responsible for making payment of rant of that shop till he pays Rs. 12,500/- and after receipt of Rs. 12,500/- by the plaintiff Jhamatmal, Jhamatmal will make payment of rent of the rented shop situated in Holiwala Market, Sheoganj. According to the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay a sum of Rs. 12,500/- before 19-10-74 and when the plaintiff asked the defendant to discharge his obligation to sell 1/2 share to the plaintiff, the defendant gave wrong notice dated 7-11-74. It was stared in the notice that the defendant in agreement with the plaintiff had made an agreement for sale of the shop in question in favour of Premchand and Chandrabhan for Rs. 35,000/- and to earn profit by dividing half and half THE defendant stated that the price of half share Rs. 12,500/-was offered to the plaintiff on 1-10-74. THE plaintiff in his reply to the notice denied the contents of the notice and insisted for sale of 1/2 share as contemplated in the agreement. It was averred by the plaintiff that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to discharge his obligation under the agreement and prayed for a decree of specific performance.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Lekh Raj Mehta, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and Mr. P. R. Singhvi, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.