GOPAL RAMVILAS GATTANI Vs. SHESHRAO PUNDLIK HIVARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the original plaintiff. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:

(2.) The defendant though duly served, did not appear before the trial Court. The suit proceeded ex-parte against the defendant.

(3.) The learned Judge of the trial Court recorded the evidence of the plaintiff. Trial Court found that since the defendant-respondent was not the owner of the entire field but was the owner of only 3/4th share therein, plaintiff was not entitled to performance of part of the contract. He also found that defendant would not be in a position to convey the title of the entire field, hence refused decree for specific performance and ordered refund of the earnest money.