JUDGEMENT
HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J. -
(1.) THIS second appeal, at the Instance of the appellant, is directed against the judgment dated 22.6.1990 and decree dated 31.7.1990 passed in Title Appeal No. 19/88/789, whereby and whereunder the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Giridih affirmed the judgment dated 1.2.1988
decree dated 12.2.1988 passed in Title Sit No. 39/87 by Munsif, Giridih.
(2.) IT appears that plaintiff filed a title suit for specific performance of contract for directing the defendant to execute a registered sale deed in respect of Schedule A land given at the foot of the
plaint after receiving Rs. 2000.00 from the plaintiff and for delivery of khas possession to the
plaintiff. It is further alleged that defendant executed a registered deed of agreement for sale in
favour of the plaintiff in respect of the disputed land on payment of Rs. 2000.00 within a period of
17.2.1982 to 17.2.1987. The plaintiff went to the defendant with Rs. 2000.00 in the year 1986 several times, tendered the amount and requested the defendant to receive the amount and
execute the sale deed in his favour but the defendant avoided to accept the amount and execute
the sale deed. It is said that plaintiff again tendered the amount to the defendant in the month of
January, 1987 several times but the defendant avoided to accept the same on different pleas.
Thereafter the plaintiff served the defendant a notice on 30.1.1987 requesting him to accept the
money and execute the sale deed in his favour but defendant sent a reply on 4.2.1987 through
his lawyer informing that the plaintiff never tendered Rs. 2000.00 to him and requested the plaintiff
to pay Rs. 2000.00 on or before 17.2.1987 to the defendant or his lawyer Sri Prithivipal Singh,
Advocate and after this plaintiff again approached the defendant with cash money, who promised
to receive the same on 11.2.1987 in Court. On that day plaintiff with his son went to the office of
Sri Prithivipal Singh, Advocate but the defendant did not reach there and his learned advocate
directed the plaintiff to come on 16.2.1987. On that day also the plaintiff alongwith other persons
went to his office with cash amount of Rs. 2000.00 but the defendant did not turn up in the office
of the advocate. The plaintiff is still ready to pay the cash amount but the defendant avoided and
failed to perform his part of contract and hence this suit.
The defendant -respondent appeared in the suit and denied the allegations made in the plaint. It is stated that the plaintiff never approached the defendant With cash amount of Rs. 2000.00 and
the defendant never avoided to execute the sale deed. It is further said that the defendant
received the notice of the plaintiff and gave reply and requested the plaintiff to pay Rs. 2000.00 in
cash or through bank draft in the name of defendant No. 2 -respondent or his advocate on or
before 17.2.1987. It is also submitted that plaintiff approached the defendant at his village, who
promised to receive the amount on 11.2.1987 in Court but the plaintiff did not come to the
advocate of the defendant Sri Pritpal Singh so asked him to come on 16.2.1987 and on that day
also the plaintiff did not turn up before Pritpal Singh and thus he has not performed his part of
contract.
(3.) THE plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement entered into between the parties and learned Court of Munsif framed the issues, recorded evidence both oral and documentary of
both sides and ultimately dismissed the suit and the plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment
and decree of the learned Court below and there too also he lost the appeal and thereafter the
plaintiff has filed this second appeal and in this second appeal the following substantial question of
law has been formulated:
whether the learned Courts below committed an error in holding that the plaintiff was
not ready and willing to perform his part of contract purported to be on the ground that
he did not offer balance consideration either by bank -draft or to the advocate of the
defendant which mode of payment was not contemplated under the agreement?;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.