JUDGMENT - G.R. MAJITHIA, J. :---First Appeal No. 180 of 1986, Sambhaji s/o Laxmanrao Pawar v. Abdul Wahed s/o Rahmatulla, is directed against the judgment and decree dated August 28, 1986 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded in Special Suit No. 44 of 1984 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of agreement to sell dated November 28, 1981, as modified on March 31, 1982 in respect of shop bearing Gram Panchayat No. 398, situated at Naigaon Bazar, District - Nanded.

2. Abdul Wahed Rahmatullah - plaintiff respondent (hereafter referred to as the Vendee) filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated November 28, 1981 in respect of shop bearing Gram Panchayat No. 398, situated at Naigaon Bazar, District - Nanded against Sambhaji s/o Laxmanrao Pawar - defendant appellant (hereafter referred to as the Vendor) inter alia pleading that the vendor agreed to sell the shop for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,051/-; the sale price was to be paid in two instalments; Rs. 50,000/- was to be paid till January 15, 1982 and the remaining was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed, which was to be executed in May, 1982. Rs. 5,000/- was paid as earnest money. The shop was in possession of the tenant M/s. Vasundhara Seeds and it was to be got vacated. A writing dated March 30, 1982 was executed by the vendor stating that he would be paid an additional amount of Rs. 10,000 in case he failed to deliver vacant possession and the vendee would be entitled to recover damages in the sum of Rs. 10,000 if he failed to execute the sale deed. On the suggestion of the vendor, the vendee agreed to get the sale deed registered for a consideration of Rs. 49,000/-and the remaining sale price was to be paid otherwise. Cheque bearing No. AD/2 095443 drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad, Branch at Naigaon Bazar was drawn by the vendee in favour of the vendor. A stamp paper was purchased on April 12, 1982 and was given to the deed writer for drafting the sale deed. The sale deed was presented before the Sub-Registrar for registration but the vendor scored out his signature and left the Sub-Registrars office. A notice was sent to the vendor and in response thereto, the vendor informed the vendees counsel that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The vendee informed the vendors counsel that he will be available at the Sub-Registrars office on October 2, 1982 for getting the sale deed registered but the vendor did not turn up.

3. The vendor in the written statement, did not deny the execution of the agreement but inter alia pleaded that a binding contract had not come into existence between the parties and that the terms of the contract dated March 30, 1982 were vague and uncertain. The conduct of the vendee disentitles him to the equitable relief of specific performance. He also pleaded that he had made improvements on the suit property.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :

(1) Does plaintiff prove that the defendant agreed on 28th November, 1981 to sell the suit house for the consideration of Rs. 1,00,051/- to the plaintiff?

(2) Does he prove that firstly Rs. 50,000/- was to be paid until 15th January, 1982 and the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- was to be paid by the end of May 1982 at the time of registration of the sale deed?

(3) Does he prove that, that time the defendant was to vacate the tenant Vasundhara Seeds from the suit premises?

(4) Does he prove that he paid Rs. 5,000/- as earnest money at the time of agreement?

(5) Does he prove that defendant had changed his mind and got increased by Rs. 10,000/- on 30th March, 1982?

(6) Does he prove that thereafter the defendant had suggested to execute the sale deed in the name of somebody else?

(7) Does he prove that defendant further suggested that the consideration of Rs. 49,000/- only should be mentioned in the sale deed?

(8) Does he prove that the defendant had appeared in the Sub Registrars off

Click Here to Read the rest of this document