- (1.)XXX XXX XXX
(2.)The facts in nutshell, giving rise to the present appeal are that the present appellant (original plaintiff) had filed the suit being Special Civil Suit No.175 of 1979 against one Chandulal Ishwarbhai Patel (original defendant and the predecessor of the present respondents), seeking specific performance of the Agreement dated 18.05.1978 (hereinafter be referred to as the said agreement) executed by the said defendant in favour of the plaintiff, for the sale of agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos.82/4 and 83, admeasuring 10 Gunthas and 9 Gunthas respectively, situated at Village : Narol, District, Sub -District, Taluka : Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to as the suit lands), and alternatively seeking refund of Rs.14,000 -00, being consideration paid under the agreement, and further seeking the damages to the tune of Rs.10,000 -00 for the breach of agreement. It was alleged inter alia in the plaint that the defendant was the owner of the suit lands, who had executed the agreement dated 18.05.1978 in favour of the plaintiff for the sale of the suit lands for consideration of Rs.18,000 -00, out of which the plaintiff had paid Rs.2,000 -00 towards earnest money, Rs.6,000 -00 towards sale consideration and another Rs.6,000 -00 towards consideration in cash. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had handed over the possession of the suit lands to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the said agreement and, thereafter, the parties had to apply for obtaining necessary permissions under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the Bombay Tenancy Act. It was also stated in the plaint that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying remaining amount of Rs.4,000 -00 to the defendant, and had also called upon the defendant to execute the sale -deed in favour of the plaintiff, however, the defendant did not execute the same. The plaintiff had, therefore, filed the suit seeking specific performance of the said agreement and other reliefs as stated earlier. The said suit was resisted by the defendant by filing written statement at Ex.12, denying the allegations made in the plaint and further contending inter alia that the plaintiff had paid only Rs.8,000 -00 i.e. Rs.2,000 -00 towards earnest money and Rs.6,000 -00 towards sale consideration, however, had not paid another Rs.6,000 -00 in cash as alleged in the plaint. It was also contended that the possession of the suit lands was never handed over to the plaintiff pursuant to the said agreement, though it was mentioned so in the agreement. It was also contended that the suit lands were under the charge of the Bank of India and even otherwise, the plaintiff had not taken any action for obtaining necessary permissions from the Government Authorities and not shown any readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract. According to the defendant, the plaintiff had not paid the remaining amount of sale consideration within the period of 9 months fixed in the said agreement and, therefore, earnest money was liable to be forfeited and the said agreement was liable to be treated as cancelled. The defendant had, therefore, prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.
(3.)XXX XXX XXXX