Bhagat Ram and others vs Kalsi alias Kalesh Ram

Vijay Kumar Shrivastava, J.—This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 1-8-1996, passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Raigarh, in Civil Suit No. 15-A/95, vide which the suit filed by the respondent for specific performance of contract has been decreed. Admittedly, the suit land along with the kachcha house (made of mud) is situated in Khasra No. 309/4, 309/2, 122, 484 total area 3.35 acres at Village Kawriha. Tahsil and District Raigarh. The appellants were the owners of the suit land and house. On 7-6-1990, the appellants agreed to sell the suit property to the respondent for a consideration of Rs. 62,000/- and executed an agreement to sell after receiving an advance of Rs. 34,000/-. The appellants agreed to receive the remaining amount by forthcoming Fagun Purnima and to execute a registered sale-deed in favour of the respondent. Subsequently, the appellants extended the period upto 18-3-1992.

The respondent, averring that, the suit property has been purchased by him from the appellants for a consideration of Rs. 62,000/- on 7-6-1990 under an agreement executed by the appellants, who have received the advance of Rs. 34,000/- towards the transaction, delivered possession of the suit land and house to the respondent and agreed to receive the remaining amount of Rs. 28,000/- by forthcoming Pagan Purnima. Before the scheduled time, the respondent paid Rs. 18,000/- and was ready for payment of remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- at the time of registration of deed and made a request to the appellants 10 execute the registered sale-deed but the appellants always avoided to execute the registered sale-deed and afterwards attempted to sell the suit property elsewhere. A Panchayat was convened at Village Latesara. The appellants were present there, They admitted the fact that they received Rs. 18,000/- in three installments and agreed to execute the registered sale-deed, but despite that, refused to execute the sale-deed and to receive the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The respondent was always ready and willing to execute his part but denial on the part of appellants compelled the respondent to file the suit for a decree of specific performance of the contract.

Although the appellants categorically admitted that they entered into an agreement to sell the suit properly to the respondent on 7-6-1990 for a consideration of Rs. 62,000/- and received advance of Rs. 34,000/-, but denied receiving Rs. 18,000/- at any time. The appellants denied the claim of the respondent and averred that they demanded several times from the respondent to pay Rs. 28,000/- and get sale-deed executed and registered but the respondent did not pay the amount. Even on his request, further one year''s time has been extended for payment of remaining amount, hut by that time also, the respondent did not pay a single penny. The respondent, without any authority or permission, cut, 18 trees belonging to the appellants costing Rs. 7,000/- and removed various materials, fertilizers and food grains total valuing Rs. 18,450/-. After due adjustment, only Rs. 9,550/- left remained to be paid by the appellants to the respondent for which they arc ready. For breach of the contract, the respondent is responsible who did not pay the balance amount and got the sale-deed executed and registered.

Both the parties, in support of their case, adduced oral and documentary evidence. Learned Court below, after due appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the respondent, within the stipulated lime, paid Rs. 18,000/- to the appellants and thereafter was ready with remaining Rs. 10,000/- for getting the sale-deed registered but the appellants denied to execute and register sale-deed. The respondent was always ready to perform his part of the contract, therefore, the suit was decreed for specific performance of contract in favour of the respondent.

Kalsiram, P.W.-1, Pakla, P.W.-2 and Dcokumar, P.W.-4, in their evidence, have deposed that the appellants agreed to sell the suit properly for Rs. 62,000/- and executed an agreement to sell. On that day, they received Rs. 34,000/- as advance towards the sale consideration and agreed to receive the balance Rs. 28,000/- by forthcoming Pagan Purnima and to execute the registered sale-deed. Gangadhar, D.W.-1, who is the appellant No. 2 did not contradict the said evidence, but he has also deposed that in 1990, for a consideration of Rs. 62,000/-, he entered into an agreement to sell the suit property and received Rs. 34,000/- as advance towards the sale with a condition that remaining amount will be paid by the forthcoming Pagan Purnima. The evidence of both the parties as well facts admitted clearly establish that on 7-6-1990 agreement, Ex. P-7 duly proved by Dcokumar, P.W.-4 has been executed by the appellants to sell the suit properly and vide that document they received advance Rs. 34,000/- towards sale amount.

Kalsiram, P.W.-1 and Pakla, P.W.-2, in their evidence, deposed that, after execution of the agreement, in three installments of Rs. 7,000/-, Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 5,000/-, total Rs. 18,000/- have been paid to the appellants. Gangadhar, D.W.-1, one of the appellants, in his cross-examination, clearly admits that Kalsiram paid Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 7,000/- before Pagan Purnima. Therefore, from the evidence of both the sides, it was proved that before the scheduled time, balance part of sale consideration Rs. 18,000/- has been paid to the appellants towards the consideration and the balance of only Rs. 10,000/- remains. Kalsiram, P.W.-1, in his evidence, deposed that, he made a request to the appellants to execute registered sale-deed, but they denied, therefore, a panchayat was convened. He was ready with remaining Rs. 10,000/-. In that Panchayat, the appellant No. 1, Bhagat Ram admitted receiving of Rs. 18,000/- and also agreed to execute registered sale-deed on next date, but again on next date, denied to execute the same. Gangadhar. D.W.-1, the appellant No. 2, in cross-examination, admitted that he refused to receive Rs. 10,000/-. He also admitted that in the office of the Registrar, the respondent was carrying Rs. 10,000/-, but the appellants did not execute the registered sale-deed. From the evidence adduced by the respondent and the admission of Gangadhar, the appellant No. 2, it is established that the respondent was always ready and willing to execute his part but it was the appellants who failed to perform their part and breached the contract, so far it relates to execution of the registered sale-deed as the evidence of Gangadhar, the appellant No. 2 itself is that the suit properly was handed over to the respondent on the date of the execution of the agreement.

From the above discussion, it is established that the appellants agreed to sell the suit property to the respondent for a consideration of Rs. 62,000/-. They received advance of Rs. 34.000/- on 7-6-1990 and delivered possession of the suit property to the respondent performing a part of the contract, during the scheduled time in three installments, again Rs. 18.000/- was paid to the appellants, further one year''s time for payment and execution of registered sale-deed was extended by the appellants and within scheduled period the respondent was ready with Rs. 10,000/- but the appellants refused to receive the balance amount and execute the registered sale-deed. Therefore, learned trial Court, which, after due evaluation of the evidence on record, decreed the suit by adjudicating relevant issues in favour of the respondent, did not commit any error.

No any other contention has been raised by any of the parties.

In the result, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower court is maintained. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The panics shall near their own cost of this appeal.