PRAKASH KRISHNA, J. - (1.) THIS is defendants' first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10th of April, 1990 passed in Suit No. 107 of 1986.
(2.) THE present appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondents for specific performance of an agreement dated 10th of May, 1985. The suit was instituted on the pleas, inter alia, that the plaintiff was the owner of the half share in agricultural plot No. 288 situate in village Urmura Kirar, Tehsil Sikohabad. He was bhumidhar with transferable right. On 10.5.1985 he executed a sale deed in favour of Smt. Jai Rani for a sum of Rs. 40,000 in respect of the land in suit. In the said sale deed it was agreed between the parties that if the plaintiff pays a sum of Rs. 40,000 within a period of one year, defendants shall reconvey the land in suit in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has sought the specific performance of the said condition as his request to the defendants to execute the deed of reconveyance to the defendants yielded no result. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff has even tendered Rs. 40,000 to them and requested them to execute the deed of reconveyance but the defendants always avoided the execution of the sale deed on one pretext or the other. Notice dated 9th March, 1985 was given which was served on the defendants on 30.4.1985. Thereafter, a telegram was given by the plaintiff on 9.5.1986 stating that he has the ready money but the defendants were not prepared to execute the sale deed. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing a joint written statement. The execution of sale deed dated 10.5.1985 is admitted vide para 6 of the written statement with the rider that it was outright sale deed. In para 7 of the written statement only this much has been stated that the condition of return of the is illegal and ineffective. In para 9 thereof it was stated that the condition of reconveyance is not enforceable as the sale deed is an unilateral deed. By way of amendment para 14A was added and a plea that the suit is hit by Section 164 of U. P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was added.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings the trial court framed 8 issues. It has come to the conclusion that the condition of reconveyance in the sale deed is a valid condition, there is no defect in the plaint for want of compliance of Forms 47 and 48 of Schedule A of C.P.C. The plaintiff was always ready and willing and is still ready and willing to get the sale deed executed in his favour. The suit is not barred by Sections 10 and 11 of the Transfer of Property Act. Condition in the sale deed is binding on the defendants and the suit is not barred by Section 164 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.;