MAYAWANTI Vs. KAUSHALYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This plaintiffs appeal by special leave is from the judgment and order dated 14/02/1984 of the High court of Punjab and Haryana in Regular Second Appeal No. 1498 of 1982, modifying those of the courts below and passing a decree for Rs. 5,000. 00 only by way of refund of earnest money instead of decree for specific performance.

(2.) The appellant herein as plaintiff filed Civil Suit Nos. 195/196 of 1973, averring, inter alia, that she had entered into an agreement dated 16/09/1971 with the respondent (defendant) for purchase of property No. B-VII-7 (old) and B-VIII-9 (new) containing 2 Kohlus of 20 H. P. electric motor etc. for a consideration of Rs. 50,000. 00 and also had paid to the defendant an earnest money of Rs. 5,000. 00; that the property was jointly owned by the defendant with her step mother-in-law Smt Lajwanti who would also join the execution of the sale deed; that if Smt Lajwanti failed to do so the respondent (defendant) would sell her half share of the property for half of the sale price; that the defendant- respondent pursuant to the agreement-delivered possession of her share of the property to the plaintiff-appellant, whereafter the plaintiff repaired the property spending Rs. 4,200. 00; that thereafter the partition was also effected between the defendant-respondent and Smt Lajwanti; that the defendant thereafter illegally took possession of the property from the plaintiff-appellant and refused to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement dated 16/09/1971 on or before 26/09/1971 as stipulated; that as arbitration proceedings between defendant and her co-sharer Smt Lajwanti was going on the defendant took back the said agreement (styled as receipt) and thereafter refused, to execute the stipulated sale deed and in response to the plaintiffs lawyers notice dated 23/07/1971 the defendant took the false plea that the agreement did not pertain to the building but only to the machinery fitted therein. The relief prayed was a decree for specific performance of the contract,in the alternative a decree for a total sum of Rs. 16,000. 00 including the earnest money of Rs. 5,000. 00.

(3.) The defendant-respondent contested the suit on the inter alia pleas that the agreement being not scribed on a proper stamped paper was not permissible in evidence; that it was only a paper transaction executed to pressurise her co-sharer Smt Lajwanti; that no earnest money was paid; that in any case the document related only to the movable property; and that pursuant to the compromise between the parties dated 9/01/1972, the agreement was destroyed.