CHHANGANI, J.—This is a second appeal by defendants Fatehsingh, Mukand Singh and Ganpatsingh, and has arisen out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of agricultural land. Plaintiff-respondents Gopi and Moti of Anop Pura filed a suit against the defendant-appellants in the Court of Munsif, Jaipur Districts Jaipur, with the following allegations.

2. The defendant-appellants were Khatedar tenants of holding Khasra No. 241 measuring 5 Bighas 11, Biswas called by the name "Bagahali" in village Jhund, Tehsil Sanganer. That on Bhadwa Sudi 6, Samvat 2016 corresponding to 24th of September, 1959, the defendants sold the holding mentioned above to the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 1,375/- and executed a writing in their favour. The purchase money was paid over to the defendants-appellant and they agreed to execute a regular sale-deed and get it registered within a period of one month. It was also agreed between the parties that the defendants would be responsible for the expenses on account of stamps and registration. The plaintiffs case was that the defendants failed to execute the sale deed and in the meanwhile they started negotiations for the sale of the holding with one Ganesh. The plaintiffs thereupon served a notice upon the defendants which was received by the defendants on 5th November, 1950. The defendants did not care to reply to the notice. The plaintiffs consequently filed a suit on 19th May, 1960 for specific performance of the contract. In the alternative, they prayed for the refund of the money paid to the defendants with interest together with damages amounting to Rs. 110/- calculated at the rate of Rs. 1/- per cent per mensem on the money paid to the defendants.

3. The defendants contested the plaintiffs suit. They denied that they entered into any contract with the plaintiff for the sale of any land. They also denied receipt of Rs. 1,375/-. The defendants further pleaded that they had already sold the land to Ganesh son of Pura for Rs. 2,151/- on 31st March, 1957 and had handed over the possession to him. They further stated that a regular deed of sale was executed and got registered in favour of Ganesh on 27th May, 1960.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed five issues but controversy between the parties having been confined to two issues they need only be reproduced—

"1. Whether on 24.8.50 the defendants obtained Rs. 1,375/- and agreed to sell the disputed land and executed a writing for the same in favour of the plaintiffs and delivered oral possession? P

2. Whether the defendant failed to execute sale deed and get in registered and now whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree according to O. 21, R. 34 C.P.C. or to get back in the alternative the amount of Rs. 1,375/-. P

The trial court after recording the evidence of the parties arrived at the following findings —

1. That the execution of the document Ex. I, the passing of the consideration of Rs.1,375/thereunder and the delivery of the oral (symbolical) possession were proved.

2. That the document Ex. 1 embodied an outright and complete sale of the land and the defendants being khatedars could not effect an absolute transfer of their land and that being so, the agreement was not enforceable at law.

The trial court consequently dismissed the plaintiffs suit for specific performance of the contract but decreed it for damages amounting to Rs. 1,375/- plus interest. The defendants filed an appeal against the decree directing the refund of the amount to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed cross objections claiming specific performance of the contract. The appeal and the cross objections were heard by the Senior Civil Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. The Senior Civil Judge agreed with the findings of the trial court with regard to the execution of the document as also with regard to the passing of the consideration and in the result dismissed the defendants appeal. Considering the cross-objections of the plaintiff-respondents th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document