- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 17.03.1986 passed by Additional District Judge, Bali, whereby, the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent -plaintiff has been decreed and it has been directed that plaintiff would pay or deposit the balance consideration of Rs.26,000/ - within a period of two months, where after, the defendant would execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and hand over the possession of the land.
(2.) WHEN this appeal came up for admission, the same was admitted on 12.05.1986 and it was ordered that the execution of decree shall remain stayed. The interim order was confirmed on 25.08.1987 directing as under: - "Heard on the stay application. It is ordered that the amount of Rs.26,000/ - which had been deposited by the plaintiff -respondent in the Court of Additional District Judge, Bali shall be deposited by that Court in fixed deposit for a term of three years. The operation of the decree of the trial court is stayed till the decision of Civil First Appeal No.42 of 1986." The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the plaintiff Champa Lal filed a suit for specific performance on 17.09.1980 with the averments that the defendant Mangal Singh agreed to sale his land situated in village Jadri, Tehsil Bali to him and execute an agreement dated 03.07.1980 in his favour; his brother and agent had entered into negotiations with the defendant, which culminated into suit agreement and Rs.1,000/ - were paid to defendant and it was agreed to pay the balance consideration of Rs.26,000/ - on 15.08.1980 at the time of registration; in case the plaintiff failed to pay the balance amount by 15.08.1980, the advance payment of Rs.1,000/ - would stand forfeited and the defendant would not be bound by the agreement; the plaintiff went to the house of the defendant and to his shop on 14.08.1980 with the requisite amount, but the son of the defendant informed that the defendant had gone to Pali; the defendant met one Keval Chand at Falna on 16.08.1980 and they came to Bali and their Advocate Shri Jagraj Jain demanded the passbook and previous sale deed, but the defendant told that he would bring the document in a day or two; as the defendant did not turn up for two days, Keval Chand, one Hasti Mal and Manohar Singh, Advocate went to the house of defendant with the balance consideration, who was not found and, therefore, they went to Bali where the defendant met them; the defendant refused to get the deed registered and, therefore, a notice dated 20.08.1980 was sent to the defendant, to which, a false reply was given and, therefore, the suit was being filed seeking specific performance and it was prayed that decree for specific performance be passed directing the defendant to execute the sale deed and get it registered in plaintiff's favour; it was claimed that plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
(3.) THE defendant contested the suit by filing written statement; it was, inter alia, submitted that plaintiff failed to perform contract at the stipulated time i.e. by 15.08.1980; it was denied that plaintniff's brother Keval Chand and Hasti Mal came to his house on 14.08.1980 with balance consideration of Rs.26,000/ -; he was ready and willing to execute the deed and get it registered as per the agreement on 15.08.1980; as on 15.08.1980 there was a public holiday, he came to Bali on 16.08.1980 and plaintiff's brother Keval Chand also came there; when he demanded Rs.26,000/ - as per the agreement, the plaintiff tried to avoid the contract and, therefore, the registration of the deed could not take place though he was present in the Court till 05:00 PM; the averments relating to production of passbook and previous sale deed within a day or two were denied; on the other hand, it was claimed that it was made clear to the plaintiff's brother Keval Chand at the time of agreement that the previous sale deed had been lost and the plaintiff's brother and his advocate had already seen the Khatoni and settlement Parcha, the fact about carrying the balance consideration of Rs.26,000/ - was denied; it was claimed that as the time stipulated in the agreement had expired, he was no longer bound by the contract and was prepared to return the amount of Rs.1,000/ -. Ultimately, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. The trial court framed four issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to purchase the suit land as per the conditions of agreement dated 03.07.1980 and he has not violated the agreement? (ii) Whether after 16.08.1980 the defendant was not bound to execute the sale deed and deliver possession in terms of the agreement? (iii) Whether defendant was entitled to special cost of Rs.3,000/ -? (iv) Relief. ;