Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) It is admitted between the parties that Harinandan was owner of disputed landed property, who had taken loan from Union Bank of India for purchase of tractor and mortgaged the disputed plot No. 885 and other properties in favour of Bank as a security for the loan. He could not repay the loan and died in the year 1986. He was substituted by his legal representatives, 1st set, (Defendants no. 1 to 3). It is also admitted that plaintiffs had offered to purchase the disputed land, then it was agreed between the parties that plaintiffs will pay the Bank loan of Rs. 96,000/- upto 31.7.1988 and thereafter when defendants will receive 'No Objection Certificate' then they will sell the plot no. 855 to plaintiffs. In this way the parties entered into registered agreement for sale dated 31.10.1986, and at the time of this contract they have received Rs. 2000/- as advance consideration from plaintiffs. Thereafter, plaintiffs had also given more amount to defendants as against proposed sale consideration. It is also admitted that plaintiffs has deposited the amount of Rs. 96,000/- in loan account of defendants, but said deposition was not within time.
(3.) Apart from above mentioned admitted facts, the plaint case in brief was that plaintiffs had contracted to purchase whole of the plot no. 885 from defendant but it was found by them that defendants 1st set maybe owner of only 3/4th share of disputed property, because they were under litigation by one Baij Nath (defendant no-4/ defendant 2nd Set of plaint), who had claimed remaining 1/4th share in this property. Then on non-execution of sale-deed in accordance with the terms of contract, the plaintiff had filed suit for specific performance of contract for 3/4th share in disputed property. During pendency of original suit dispute between defendant 1st set and Baij Nath was resolved in revenue court, and Baij Nath has relinquished his claim on disputed property, so finding defendants 1st set to be the owner of whole of the plot no. 885, the plaintiff had amended plaint and sought relief of specific performance of contract for whole of the disputed property. It was further pleaded in plaint that parties had came to mutual arrangement that the execution of registered sale-deed of disputed property will be made on 10.1.1989, but on that date plaintiffs had been waiting defendants, who had not arrived for execution of sale-deed. After that, on request of plaintiffs the defendants were not ready to execute the sale-deed. Therefore, after serving the legal notice, plaintiff had filed suit for specific performance.;