- (1.) G. D. Dube, J. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Dehradun dismissing the suit for specific performance of the contract entered into between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 and for possession of the property in dispute.
(2.) THE appellant has alleged that the respondent No. I had decided to sell the property in dispute by its resolution No. 8 dated 27-2-1975 and authorised respondent No. 2 to sell the property in dispute and entered into an agreement for the said purpose. THE respondent No. 2 had met and informed the appellant in the second week of June. 1976 that he was intending to sell the property in suit. THE plaintiff had, therefore, made his offer to purchase the property for Rupees 67,100/ -. THE respondent No. 2 had accepted the offer of sale of the property on as it is basis with all litigation involved in the said property. It was alleged in the plaint that in this way there was concluded contract between the parties in respect of the property in dispute. THE plaintiff-appellant had gone to Sri R. K. Sinha, Advocate of respondent No. 2 to get the draft of agreement executed between the contracting parties finalised. But Sri Sinha had not finalised it. THEreafter plaintiff-appellant had written letter to respondent No. 2 to get the sale-deed executed but no reply was given to this letter. Respondents 1 and 2 had sent notice on 20- 9-1976 through their Advocate Sri R. K. Sinha denying the contract for sale between the parties. Respondents 1 and 2 sent another notice through their advocate Sri R. K. Sinha to the appellant on 3-11- 1976 threatening for disposing their property in suit to defendant-respondents 4 to 6. THE appellant has alleged that lie was always willing to perform his part of contract, Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate written statements. They denied that any contract was finalised between the parties. It was however admitted that plaintiff-appellant had made offer of Rs. 67,100/- to purchase the property. It was denied that appellant had gone with the draft agreement to Sri R. K. Sinha, Advocate. The respondent had contended on the other hand that when the appellant had approached Sri R. K. Sinha, Advocate he had specifically informed appellant that the agreement shall provide no warranty of title nor shall provide any warranty according to law. The plaintiff had not agreed to these terms. It was urged that as plaintiff-appellant had not agreed to purchase the property without any warranty of title and warranty as provided by law no contract had finalised between the parties. Respondents 1 and 2 admitted that the appellant was certainly informed that the respondents 1 and 2 are intending to sell the property to respondents 4 to 6. It was also alleged in paragraph 22 of the written statement that as plaintiff-appellant had negotiated on behalf of some undisclosed person had no personal interest in the agreement. He had, therefore, no right to maintain the suit for specific performance of contract. Respondents 3 to 6 had filed separate written statement. They had raised almost same plea as raised by respondents 1 and 2. They have also alleged that they were bona-fide purchasers believing that there was no valid contract between appellant and respondent No. 1. The plea of bar of limitation was also raised.
(3.) ON the pleading of the parties the lower court had framed 7 issues. The issue No. 1 relating to contract between plaintiff-appellant and defendant-respondent No. 2 was answered in the negative holding that no contract had materialised. Issue No. 2 regarding willingness and readiness of the appellant to perform his part of the contract was answered in favour of the plaintiff-appellant holding that he was willing and ready to perform his part of contract. Issue No. 3 relating to plea that the plaintiff-appellant was negotiating on behalf of undisclosed person was answered against the defendant. Issue No. 4 was whether defendant-respondent No. 3 had been unnecessarily impleaded. It has been answered against the defendant-respondent. Issue No. 5 regarding limitation was answered against the plaintiff-appellant. It was held that right from 26-6-1976 the plaintiff-appellant had knowledge of refusal by defendant respondents 1 and 2 to execute the sale-deed. The learned Judge had mentioned 3-7-1976, third week of August, 1976, 6-9-1976, 10-9-1976 the dates on which the plaintiff-appellant is alleged to have been informed about the intention of the defendant-respondent 1 and 2 not to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. The suit had been filed on 17th September, 1979. It was held that the suit was barred by Art. 54 of Limitation Act. Issue No. 6 was regarding the bona fides of defendants-respondents 4-6 in purchasing the property in dispute and also purchasing it without notice of previous agreement. This issue had been answered in favour of the defendants-respondents Nos. 4 to 6 holding that they had purchased the property bona fidely and without notice of the previous agreement. ON these findings issue No. 7 regarding relief was answered in the negative and the suit was dismissed. The first point raised in this matter relates to the contract of sale between the parties. The main anchor of the apellant is the letter dated 19-6-1976 of defendant No. 2 which is Ext. 1. The main reliance has been placed upon the first and second paragraphs of this letter which reads as under:- "please accept my love and best wishes and convey them to all the members of the family. I confirm your offer for the purchase of the properties known as 2 Amrit Kaur Road, Dehradun (formerly known as 4 New Road, Dehradun) comprising of two havelis and one shop on "as it is basis" with all the litigations etc. involved in the said properties by your party from the Mission on a price of Rs. 67,100/- (Rupees sixty seven thousand and one hundred only) and also the acceptance by me on behalf of the Ramakrishna Mission on the 18th instant. This is the highest offer so far received by me. ";