Mahesh Chandra VS Avinash Kumar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

J.J.MUNIR
Mahesh Chandra – Appellant
Versus
Avinash Kumar – Respondent

Counsel for the Parties:
Second Appeal No.1873/1985
For the Appellants:N.C. Rajvanshi and M.K. Rajvanshi, Advocates
For the Respondents:N.L. Agarwal, Mahtab Alam, N.L. Ganguly, Pradyumna Kumar Yadav and Rakesh Pratap Singh, Advocates
Second Appeal No.2315/1985
For the Appellants:Mahtab Alam, Advocate
For the Respondents:M.K. Rajvanshi, Manoj Kumar Rajvanshi, N.C. Rajvanshi and N.K. Rajvanshi, Advocates

JUDGMENT

J.J. Munir, J.—These two second appeals have arisen from a suit for specific performance of contract. Second Appeal No. 1873 of 1985 has been preferred by the plaintiff, whereas Second Appeal No. 2315 of 1985 has been brought by the defendant. Both appeals have been heard together. Second Appeal No. 1873 of 1985 shall be treated to be the leading case.

2. The facts giving rise to the two appeals are these:

Original Suit No. 144 of 1982 for specific performance of contract was instituted by Mahesh Chand against one Rampal Singh, seeking specific performance of a registered agreement to sell dated 02.05.1980, executed in favour of Mahesh Chand by Rampal Singh. Mahesh Chand is hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’, which includes reference to his legal heirs and representatives, since substituted in his stead. Rampal Singh, who died pending appeal before the lower Appellate Court and was substituted there by his sole heir and legal representative, Avinash Kumar, is hereinafter referred to as the ‘defendant.’

3. The plaintiff’s case is that a registered agreement to