SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) The plaintiff/appellant, who appears in person has preferred S.B. Civil First Appeal No.64/1985 assailing the judgment and decree dated 08.04.1985 passed by learned District Judge, Balotra, Camp Barmer, whereby his suit for specific performance of contract, and possession was refused and the amount of Rs.43,702/- was directed to be paid to the appellant/plaintiff.
(2.) The suit was preferred by the appellant for specific performance and possession of house, and in the alternative, to grant a sum of Rs.43,702/- alongwith interest, expenses and compensation.
(3.) Brief facts, stated in the plaint, are that the plaintiff/appellant has set up a case as tenant that he entered into an oral agreement with defendant-Chhagani Devi widow of Late Rana Mal and her son Loonkaran for purchase of the entire property belonging to Late Rana Mal, as detailed out in the plaint, on 25.05.1981. The said sale agreement was entered with the sanction of the other defendants and for a total consideration of Rs.40,000/-. It was also agreed that expenses required for the registration of sale of the property shall be borne by the plaintiff/appellant. The appellant further reiterated what he has submitted in his plaint and stated before the court that he alongwith defendant No.2 had gone to Jodhpur and deposited a sum of Rs.3702/- by way of challan No.330 in favour of defendant No.2 for purchase of stamps for preparing the sale deed. Four stamp papers of Rs.3000/-, Rs.500/-, Rs.200/- and Rs.2/- respectively were issued by the Treasury and a sale deed was required to be executed on the said stamp papers. On 22.06.1981, he handed over a cheque of Rs.40,000/- drawn on Bank of Rajasthan Limited, Barmer Branch to defendant No.1 Chhagani Devi who encashed the said cheque, and thereafter, handed over a receipt Exhibit-3 and iqrarnama (agreement) Exhibit-2, wherein she put her signatures and also mentioned that she had received the amount. The execution of the sale deed was deferred on account of there being a theft in the family of the defendants, and thereafter, death of a close relative. He has stated that on 10.03.1982, he again approached the defendants for getting the agreement executed as per the sale draft, which was in possession of the respondents/defendants, but the same was not executed, and therefore, he filed the suit praying for issuing directions for getting the agreement executed. It was also alternatively prayed that if for any reasons, execution is not possible, the amount already paid be recovered from the respondents/defendants alongwith interest @ 15% per annum. ;