MAHESH CHAND Vs. MANOHARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant has preferred this regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the impugned judgment and decree dated 25th August, 1988 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 1, Alwar in Civil Suit No. 7/81 (58/78), whereby suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated the relevant facts of the appeal are that on 6th October, 1978, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement in respect of disputed property i.e. double storied shop. It was pleaded in the suit that on 16th January, 1978, the defendants agreed to sell the disputed property situated in village Kathoomar, Tehsil Laxmangarh to plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. Rs. 5,000/- were paid as an advance. An agreement was executed in this regard. The remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff was in possession of the disputed property even prior to the execution of the agreement. The plaintiff requested the defendants to execute the sale deed after taking the remaining amount of the contract and in pursuance thereof, the defendants took a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards stamps on 13th March, 1978. The stamps were purchased by defendants. The plaintiff wanted to execute the sale deed of first floor in his own name and in the name of his wife for second floor. The defendants purchased the stamps, but they returned back to their village after informing the plaintiff that they will again come to execute the sale deed on 31.3.1978. It was further pleaded that at the time of execution of the sale deed one Padam Chand, the relative of defendants came and at his instance the sale deed was not executed. The plaintiff again requested the defendants to execute the sale deed number of times, a notice dated 18th May, 1978 was also served, but defendants did not execute and register the sale deed. It was also pleaded in the plaint that in pursuance of notice of plaintiff, the defendants gave a reply that plaintiff was not having the remaining amount of Rs. 25,000/-, therefore, sale deed was not executed and the said fact is absolutely false and baseless. The plaintiff was ready to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 25,000/- on 31st March, 1978 and is still ready to pay the remaining amount and other expenses of registration charges. In these circumstances, the present suit was instituted with a prayer that decree of specific performance of the contract be passed and in case the same is not passed then a decree of a sum of Rs. 12,000/- be passed in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendants filed their written- statement on 31st July, 1980, wherein the contents of the plaint, as mentioned, were denied. It was pleaded by defendants that the defendants were in urgent need of money and they even accepted the request of the plaintiff to execute the sale deed of first floor of the disputed property in the name of his wife, they purchased the stamps on 13th March, 1978 and handed over the same to plaintiff for his execution and registration, but plaintiff told them that he could not arrange the money, therefore, 15 days' time may be granted to him. The defendants accepted his request and they granted time upto 31st March, 1978. The defendants again came back at Kathoomar on 31st March, 1978 for registration of the sale deed, but plaintiff failed to arrange the remaining amount of Rs. 25,000/- as per terms of the agreement. The defendants also pleaded that it is absolutely wrong to say that one Padam Chand came and at his instance the sale deed was not got registered. In additional plea, it was pleaded that the defendants were ever ready for execution and registration of the sale deed and for that purpose they came at Kathoomar on 13th March, 1978 and again on 31st March, 1978, but on both the dates the plaintiff could not arrange the remaining amount of money, therefore, present suit is liable to be dismissed and amount of Rs. 5,000/- paid as an advance has been forfeited. It was, therefore, prayed that suit of plaintiff be dismissed.