Prakash Gupta, J. - (1.) THE instant Civil First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the legal heirs of the original plaintiff Late Shri Lakshmi Narain, who died during pendency of the suit (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff -appellants'). Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 1.10.1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 8, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned trial court') in Civil Suit No. 225/1996 whereby the trial court dismissed the civil suit filed by the original plaintiff Lakshmi Narain against the defendant -respondents for specific performance of the agreement dated 31.12.1977, for grant of permanent injunction and for cancellation of the Sale -deed dated 19.11.1982 in favour of defendant -respondent No. 2 Abdul Majid.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the original plaintiff, Lakshmi Narain, filed the present suit on 24/02/1983. It was stated in the plaint that the plaintiff was a tenant and was doing the business of selling betel by putting a cabin on the ground floor barandah since 1968. Defendant respondent No. 1 agreed to sell the property in dispute to the plaintiff Shri Lakshmi Narain vide an agreement dated 31.12.1977 for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/ -. At the time of execution of agreement, an amount of Rs. 4000/ - was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as part payment and the rest of the amount i.e. Rs. 11,000/ - was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale -deed. As per the case of the plaintiff, he had handed over to the defendant, the necessary papers for obtaining No -Objection Certificate (NOC) from the concerned authority, i.e. The Urban Ceiling Authority, Jaipur. It was also agreed that on getting NOC from the concerned authority, the defendant was to inform the plaintiff and then within a period of 15 days, he was to get the sale deed registered and the plaintiff was to bear the expenses of registration. The defendant Smt. Chand Bai did not inform about having obtained the NOC. The plaintiff disclosed to defendant No. 2 the fact regarding the agreement to sale dated 31.12.1977 executed by defendant No. 1. On 2.10.1982 the plaintiff met defendant No. 1 and requested her to perform her part of the contract. Upon this, defendant No. 1 assured the plaintiff that she would not sell the property in dispute to anybody else other than the plaintiff. Again, on 1.11.1982 similar request was made by the plaintiff but this time the defendant No. 1, bluntly refused to do so. Then the plaintiff received a notice dated 3.1.1983 sent on behalf of defendant No. 1 to the effect that she had sold the property in dispute to Shri Abdul Majid, defendant No. 2. It was further averred in the plaint that on 22.2.1983, defendant No. 2 threatened the plaintiff and tried to remove and dispossess him from the cabin where he was doing his business. The plaintiff also averred that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Thus, the civil suit was filed for specific performance of the contract dated 31.12.1977, for cancelling the sale -deed dated 19.11.1982 and for seeking of permanent injunction. Both the defendants filed their separate written statements.
(3.) IN her written statement, defendant No. 1 has come with the case that the map shown by the plaintiff is not correct. The plaintiff neither got any documents prepared for obtaining the NOC nor he was ever interested in purchasing the disputed property. He was a tenant in the premises and had illegally put his cabin. The property was righty sold to defendant No. 2 through registered sale deed dated 19.11.1982. The defendant was in need of money for starting business for her son thereby the agreement to sale was executed but it was executable up to 31.01.1978. But the plaintiff neither prepared the papers for obtaining NOC, nor did he get the sale -deed drafted nor handed over the same to the defendant. The main condition was the time period of the contract which the plaintiff never followed. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation. It was also mentioned that the plaintiff told that he will not be able to arrange for the money, therefore, the property was sold to defendant No. 2. When the plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract then on 28.4.1979 he was informed through UPC but no step was taken by him and hence, the amount paid as part payment was forfeited.;