- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgement of the learned Additional District Judge No. l, Sri Ganganagar dated July 15, 1989 decreeing his suit for the specific performance with the conditions that the balance amounts of the sale consideration of Rs. 55,000/- and interest on it from September 29, 1982 @ 1% per month would be paid to the defendant and on his refusal to accept it would be deposited in the court within one month. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal may be summarised thus.
(2.) ON January 6, 1978, the respondent agreed to sell his 25 bighas of land situated in Sq. No. 18, Chack no. 5 h, Tehsil Sri Ganganagar for Rs. 1,15,000/- to the appellant, he accepted Rs. 10,000/- in adance from the appellant, possession of the entire land was delivered and an agreement for sale was executed the same day. Rs. 35,000/- and 15,000/- were further paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on April 15, 1978 and May 15, 1978 respectively towards the sale consideration. The defendant has to obtain 'sanad' in respect of the said land prior to the execution of the sale deed and he obtained it in August, 1982. ON September 15, 1982, the plaintiff served notice upon the defendant asking him to execture te sale deed. When he did not execute it, he filed suit for specific performatiuon on September, 19 1982. The dependent admitted in his written statement the receipt of Rs. 60,000/- from the plaintiff, delivery of the possession of his land on him and execution of the said agreement for sale. He further pleaded that the plaintiff was ready and willing to purchage only 12 bighas of land for Rs. 62,000/- and not the entire land. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sri Ganganagar decreed the suit as said above. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant that the learned trial court has seriously erred to award interest @1% per month on the remaining amount of sale consideration despite holding that the plaintiff-appellant was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the defendant was evading to perform his part of agreement. He also contended that the learned trial court should not have fixed time for the payment of the balance amount. In, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent that the learned trial court should have awarded interest from the date of the execution of the said agreement. He further contended that the plaintiff himself agreed to pay interest @. 90p. per cent per month from May 18, 1979 to the date of the execution of the sale-deed and gave a notice to this effect on the back of the said agreement for sale. He lastly contended that the price of agricultural land has escalated to 5 to 10 times from the prices prevailing in 1978 in Ganganagar District. In reply to the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the defendent-respondent, the learned counsel for the plaintiff defendant contended that the plaintiff agreed to pay interest at the said rate after the defendant agreed to execute the sale-deed within a month of the obtaining sanad and giving a note to this effect on the back of the agreement for sale, the sanad was obtained in August, 1982 and admittedly, the sale-deed was not executed by the defendant within one month of it and, therefore, the plaintiffs not bound to pay interest. Admittedly, no appeal has been filed by the defendant-respondent against the judgement decreesing the suit for specific performance.
(3.) THE first question for consideration in this appeal is whether the trial court was justified to award interest @ 1% per month from September 19, 1982 to the date of its payment. Admittedly, actual and physical possession of the entire land measuring 25 bighas was obtained by the plaintiff on the day of the execution of the agreement for sale i. e. on January, 8 1978 and since then the plaintiff is reapedits fruits. THE present suit was filed on September 29, 1982. Addmittedly, the balance amounts of consideration i. e. Rs. 55,000/-was not deposited by the plaintiff in the court. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff agreed to pay interest on the amount of Rs. 55,000/- @. 90p. per cent per month from May 19, 1979 to the date of the registration of the sale deed. THE trial court has observed that the price of agricultural land has escalated to Rs. 3-4 less per murbba during this period. This fact has not been challenged. Under these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Additional District Judge erred in awarding interest on Rs. 55,000/ -. However,he should have awarded interest @ 0. 90 paisa per cent per month as agreed by the plaintiff himself insteand of Rs. 1/ per cent per month. The second question for consideration is whether the trial court was not justified in fixing the time of one month for making payment of Rs. 35,000/-and interest. As already observed above, the plaintiff is in possession and cultivation of the entire land since January 8, 1978. The said amounts are payable to the defendant. Under the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the learned Additional District Judge committed any error in fixing the said time in the payment of Rs. 35,000/- and interest. Order 20 Rule 12-A, C. P. C. makes it obligatory for the court to specify in the decree the date by which purchase money or other sum is to be paid by the purchaser. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The plaintiff appellant will pay interest @ 0. 90 paisa per cent per month instand of Rs. 1/- per cent per month or the amount of Rs. 55,000/- from September 29, 1982 to the date of its payment or deposit and these amounts may now be deposited of paid within two months from today and the defendant Will execute the sale deed within two months of the date of the payment of deposit of the said amounts. If the defendant furnishes particulars of his bank account to the plaintiff through a registered letter, the amount of Rs. 55,000/- and interest may be deposited in the bank instead of depositing them in the court. To this extent the decree of the trial court is modified. No order as to costs. . ;