JUDGMENT - B.U. WAHANE, J.:---This is an appeal against the judgment dated 31st July, 1982 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldana-Khamgaon in Special Civil Suit No. 10 of 1980, passing a decree against the original defendant Lonkaran Kishorilal Paliwal.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:-

The original plaintiffs (present respondents) Bhaskar Rambhau Ghive and his brother Dinkar Rambhau Ghive had instituted Special Civil Suit No. 10 of 1980 against the defendant (present appellant) Lonkaran Kishorilal Paliwal, for specific performance of contract in respect of the suit property situated at Mouza Tamgaon, taluq Jalgaon-Jamod, district Buldana, bearing survey No. 178, admeasuring 5 hectors 52 R, i.e. 13 acres 26 gunthas, containing 6 lemon trees, hut and a well. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property described in plaint para 1 is owned by the defendant/appellant, who had agreed to sell the said land to the plaintiffs/respondents under registered agreement of sale dated 30th May, 1979. On that day, an earnest amount of Rs. 10,000/- was paid before the Sub-Registrar. It was agreed between the parties that the sale-deed will be executed for the total consideration of Rs. 30,000/- in favour of the plaintiffs on or before 15th March, 1980. The defendant/appellant also agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiffs/respondents free from all encumbrances. According to the plaintiffs/respondents, they were ever ready and willing to perform their part of the contract and they are still ready and willing to purchase the suit land by making the payment of balance amount of consideration. The plaintiffs/respondents asked the defendant to execute and register the document of sale in respect of the suit land, but the defendant avoided to do so on some pretext or the other. Consequently, the plaintiffs/respondents served the defendant/appellant with a notice dated 5th March, 1980, through their advocate asking the defendant/appellant to remain present in the office of the Sub-Registrar Khamgaon, on 15th March, 1980 at about 11 A.M. for executing the sale-deed. The notice issued by the plaintiffs/respondents, was duly served upon the defendant/appellant on 8th March, 1980 and the same was replied by him on 10th March, 1980.

3. The plaintiffs/respondents contended that they are purely agriculturists and they own about 15 acres of land. Prior to the agreement of sale, the plaintiffs/respondents had sold about 25 to 30 acres of land and as the suit land being adjacent to the land owned by the plaintiffs/respondents and being convenient, the plaintiffs/respondents were interested in purchasing the suit land from the defendant/appellant. The plaintiffs sold some of their property and raised the amount to purchase the land in suit. It is also contended that the defendant/appellant besides having the suit land, deals in sale and purchase of cotton and food-grains. He also gets income from house, property by way of rent. The plaintiffs/respondents denied the contention raised in reply to the notice, being false. According to the plaintiffs/respondents, they remained present in the office of the sub-Registrar, Tangaon on 15th March, 1980, with the balance amount of consideration and waited for the defendant/appellant till 5 P.M. The defendant/appellant did not turn up to execute the sale-deed and, therefore, the plaintiffs/respondents are constrained to institute the civil suit for specific performance of contract, in the alternative the plaintiffs/ respondents have claimed a decree for refund of earnest money along with damages sustained to the plaintiffs/respondents on account of breach of contract by the defendant/appellant.

4. The defendant/appellant denied the claim of the plaintiffs/respondents except the description of the suit property in para 1 of the plaint. It is submitted by the defendant/appellant that there are 20 lemon trees and permanent godown with piller constructed in cement concrete ad-measu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document