JUDGMENT - REBELLO F.I., J.: - The appellants, original plaintiffs in a suit filed against respondents, original defendants for specific performance, in the alternative prayed for some other reliefs. Some of the prayer clauses reads as under :

"(a) Defendant be compelled to give the reconveyance of purchase deed of the suit property in the name of the plaintiffs as per the deed of agreement and get the same registered. On order being passed, the plaintiff is depositing the amount into Court.

(b) In case of purchase deed being not done by the defendant No. 1, the same be got done through Court in the names of the plaintiffs on its completion.

(c) Alternatively, the suit property after being free from mortgage as per the deed of mortgage under Serial No. 7 dated 2-1-1971 be given in actual possession of the plaintiffs.

(d) It be declared that the plaintiffs are free from debt as per the Bombay Debt Relief Act and the suit property after being free from debt be given in possession of the plaintiffs.

(e) In case it is decided that it cannot be done as above, then the account of the mortgage be taken and after settling the amount payable/receivable, the amount be given to the plaintiffs or the same be given from the plaintiffs to the defendant No. 1 and for free from mortgage, necessary re-conveyance of purchase deed be got done in the name of the plaintiff from the defendant No. 1 and in the event of her not doing so, through Court and the actual possession of the property be given to the plaintiffs."

2. The case of the appellants was that they were the owners of the property which property was to be put in auction in Special Darkhast No. 78 of 1970. The financial condition of the appellants was not sound and if the amount was not paid, the property was to be sold in auction. The value of the property was approximately Rs. 2 lacs and it is contended that if the property was auctioned then plaintiffs' would have suffered loss for life. Defendant No. 1 had knowledge of the condition of the plaintiff. The plaintiff asked for a loan of Rs. 50,000/- from the defendant in order to pay the liabilities of the creditors. Defendant No. 2 agreed to give the loan of Rs. 45,000/- after taking the same from his wife, defendant No. 1 or in her name, and the plaintiff agreed to take this amount as loan. It was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendants that for the security of this amount, mortgage possession of the suit property was to be given to the defendants. However, as the defendants had no money lending licence, and as the plaintiff wanted longer period for repayment, it was agreed that the plaintiff should prepare a document of term purchase in the name of defendant No. 1. According to that, purchase deed was written on stamp paper. However, a clause of reconveyance was to be included meaning thereby that in case of repayment of loan by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 within the stipulated period and acceptance thereof by the defendant No. 1, reconveyance of the property was to be got done in the name of the plaintiff. That was left to be included in the purchase deed. After noticing this mistake and on reading the purchase deed, the defendant made an agreement at the same time i.e. on 1-1-1971 to give reconveyance of the purchase deed of the suit property in the name of the plaintiffs. That deed was also registered. It is the case of the plaintiff that they were ever willing to comply with the condition of the agreement and to pay the amount to the defendants plaintiff was also ever ready and is ready to give or bear the expenditure of reconveyance of purchase deed. Though plaintiff asked defendant No. 1 for getting the reconveyance deed in writing, the defendant avoided the same. Plaintiff then sent a registered notice dated 9-6-1978 informing the defendant to give reconveyance of purchase deed in writing. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant mischievously demanded exorbitant amount by way of reply. As the plaintiffs were

Click Here to Read the rest of this document