Tarun Agarwala, J. - (1.) LIST of hearing cases has been revised. No one appears for plaintiff respondent. Heard Sri Triveni Shanker, the learned Counsel for defendant appellants.
(2.) THE plaintiff respondent instituted a suit for specific performance. It is alleged that the defendants had contracted to sell a portion of the land for a consideration of Rs. 10,687.50 P. and that the defendants had received a sum of Rs 1,000/ - as earnest money. This agreement was duly registered. It was contended that the defendants were required to seek permission under the provisions of. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and, upon receiving the permission, the defendants were required to execute the sale deed. It was alleged that the plaintiff -respondent from time to time had enquired from the defendants as to whether the permission was received and that the defendants intimated the plaintiff that as and when the permission was granted and the matter was sorted out with the authorities, the sale deed would be executed. The plaintiff further contended that he was always ready and willing to get sale deed executed and that the defendants only dilly dallied the matter for one reason or the other. Eventually, the plaintiff gave a notice on 26.12.1981 and thereafter filed the suit. The defendants contested the matter and submitted that they were not bound by the agreement and that, time was the essence of the contract and that the plaintiff failed to get the sale deed executed after permission to sell the land was accorded to the defendants from the ceiling authorities. The defendants further contended that the requisite permission was shown to the parents of the plaintiff, who expressed their inability to pay the balance amount and consequently the earnest money was refunded to the parents of the plaintiff. It was also alleged that the defendants had entered into similar agreements with other parties for the sale of the remaining land and that the defendants to parties of the sale of the remaining land and that the defendants to show their bona fides, had executed sale deeds in favour of other parties after receiving the permission, Consequently, there was no reason for the defendants not to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendants urged that the plaintiff himself was not willing or ready to execute the sale deed. The defendants further submitted that in any case, the plaintiff was a minor and therefore on the principles of mutuality, the contract could not be enforced.
(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed as many as ten issues and after considering the evidence brought on the record, decreed the suit. The trial court held that an agreement for sale was executed between the plaintiff and defendants and defendants and that an amount of Rs. 1000/ - was paid to the defendants as earnest money. The trial court further found that the contract was binding upon the defendant No. 2 and that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. The trial court further found that no proof had been filed to prove that the earnest money of Rs. 100/ - had been returned to the plaintiff. The court further found that time was not the essence of the contract and that defendants did not intimate the plaintiff with regard to the permission granted by the ceiling authorities to he defendants. Ultimately, the trial court decreed the suit for specific performance directing the defendants to execute the sale deed upon the deposit of the balance amount by the plaintiff.;