UMRAO LAL Vs. SUNDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE admitting the appeal this court framed following substantial question of law :- (i) Whether the appellate court has misconstrued and mis- integrated the agreement Ex. 17. (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellate court has wrongly held the suit to be barred by time. (iii) Whether on the language of Ex. 1 7 the plaintiff can be said to be not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract in not directly depositing the government dues when Suchcha Singh did not disclose the Government dues to him? (iv) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the court below has committed an error in not passing a decree of possession in favour of the appellant?

(2.) THE plaintiff appellant (for short the plaintiff) instituted suit for possession and specific performance of agreement alleged to have been entered on June 19, 1964 (Ex. 17) between the plaintiff and one Suchha Singh (defendant No. 1) in respect of agricultural land measuring 8 bighas situated in the limits of village Titarka (Alwar ). On November 4, 1969 Suchha Singh executed sale deed in respect of said land in favour of defendants Subekhan and Abdulla and thus committed breach of agreement Ex. 17. THErefore the plaintiff was entitled to the decree for specific performance of agreement. Defendant Suchha Singh in his written statement denied the execution of agreement Ex. 17. Defendant Subekhan and Abdulla in their written statement pleaded that the suit land was purchased by them with consideration in good faith and without notice of the alleged agreement Ex. 17. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the trial court framed as many as ten issues, which have been set out in the judgment of the trial court. THE plaintiff thereafter examined nine witnesses. Defendant Suchha Singh did not enter into witness box while defendants Sube Khan and Abdulla examined five witnesses.

(3.) ACCORDING to Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the limitation for the specific performance of contract is three years from the date fixed for the performance or if no such date is fixed, the limitation starts when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. In the case on hand the plaintiff had to deposit the dues so as to enable Suchha Singh to obtain `sanad' of the land in dispute and thereafter within one month the sale deed had to be executed. The plaintiff in not depositing the dues did not fulfil his part of the contract and the learned appellate court rightly held that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The finding of the trial court was based on improper appreciation of the evidence and it was rightly reversed by the appellate court.