1 Mohd.
The dispute pertains to orchard land measuring 17 kanals and 2 marlas, companyprised in Khasra No.
6 8 of 1982 passed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, Srinagar.
As plaintiff apprehended that defendants were likely to alienate the suit land, plaintiff filed the suit for injunction in the companyrt of IInd Additional Munsif, Srinagar.
4,250/ per Kanal and the advance of Rs.
The learned Single Judge by judgment and decree dated 16th November, 1981 granted relief for specific performance of the companytract only for 1/3rd share of Mohd.
K.K. Dhar as guardian who appeared on his behalf during the companyrse of trial.
He also deposed that he was in a position to pay the sale companysideration of Rs.
Against that judgment the plaintiff as well as defendant number 1 filed appeals.
191/45, Khewat No.
2 3 were his benamidars.
8/82 filed by defendant No.
Out of the agreed sale companysideration of Rs.
On the day when the suit was filed, defendant No.
18241 42/98 and defendant number 3 has filed SLP number.
Additionally, it was companytended that as the agreement was number executed by all the companyowners, it companyld number be specifically enforced.
1 and dismissed the suit against defendant Nos.
Balance amount was to be paid by the plaintiff at the time of registration of the sale deed.
The Court dismissed the appeal CIA No.
Against that part of the decree, plaintiff has number preferred any appeal.
Further, in the present case, defendant No.
It allowed the appeal of the plaintiff qua the share of minor son of defendant number1 by holding that land was purchased by Mohd.
Thereafter, as the defendant refused to execute the sale deed, plaintiff had filed the present suit No.
1 with companyts and partly allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and decreed so far as it related to 1/3rd share of Manzoor Ahmad Magray, son of defendant No.
70,000/ , which was number challenged in the cross examination.
1 preferred CIA number 8 of 1982 which came up for hearing before the Division Bench.
There is numberhing on record to suggest that defendants have shown readiness and willingness to perform their part of the companytract or that they have called upon the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed in his favour or to do the needful.
22 of 1974 on 24th May, 1974 for specific performance of the companytract before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir.
Yousuf Defendant No.
His younger brother and son both minor were benamidar companyowners.
2 and 3 were companyowners.
It was stated that the land was purchased by him.
Clause 2 of the agreement stipulated that Mohd.
2 to sell the land and was also entitled to transfer the same on behalf of his minor son, defendant No.
1 was major.
However, he denied that defendant number.
It is the case of the plaintiff that Mohammad Yusuf Magray had entered into an agreement dated 14th July, 1971 for sale of suit land in favour of the plaintiff the price of the land was fixed at Rs.
Regarding the agreement to sale, he feigned ignorance.
However, defendant No.
A cannot obtain a decree against B for the specific performance of the companytract but if B is willing to pay the price agreed upon, and to take the 50 bighas which belong to A, waiving all right to companypensation either for the deficiency or for loss sustained by him through As neglect or default, B is entitled to a decree directing A to companyvey those 50 bighas to him on payment of the purchase money.
He has also denied the suggestion that he was number ready to purchase the suit land within stipulated time.
It was companytended that entire land did number belong to him but defendant number.
2 stated that land was purchased jointly and that all the three defendants were full fledged owners of the 1/3rd share each.
72,500/ , sum of Rs.
In his written statement, defendant No.
Against the said judgment, Original Plaintiff Ghulam Hassan Aram preferred CIA number 6 of 1982 defendant No.
The agreement further stated that defendant No.
1, Mohammad Yousuf Magray, Defendant No.
3 Manzoor Ahmed Magray, son of Mohammad Yousuf Magray against the Judgment and Order dated 14th August, 1998 in CIA Nos.
Lastly, it was companytended that plaintiff had numberready money and he was number ready and willing to perform his part of the companytract.
He submitted that he had offered to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff qua his share but it companyld number materialise because plaintiff was unable to pursuade other defendants to similarly execute the sale deed of their respective shares.
Against that judgment and decree, defendant No.1 has filed SLP number.
Notice dated 23rd November, 1972 was also served on Mohd Yousuf for execution of the sale deed.
1 dishonestly refused to perform his part of the companytract and, therefore, numberice was issued for performance of the companytract.
43, situated at Shankerpora, Tehsil Chadoora, District Srinagar along with trees.
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by Mohd.
1, he has admitted the execution of the agreement dated 14th July, 1971.
It was companytended by the plaintiff that as there was escalation in the prices of land, defendant No.
2 brother of defendant No.
60,000/ was to be paid by the plaintiff to defendant No.
2,000/ was paid by the plaintiff to defendant number 1 the sale transaction was to be companypleted within one and a half months.
1 had an authority from his younger brother, defendant No.
1 at the time of execution of the sale deed and delivery of possession.
Yousuf Magray entered into an agreement to sell the land purchased by him in 1968 69 in three names, namely, himself, his brother Ghulam Rasool at the relevant time minor and his minor son Manzoor Ahmad Magray .
3 was minor and, therefore, companyrt appointed Sh.
Yousuf in the name of his son and in fact, it was owned by him.
Yousuf.
Shah, J. Leave granted.
These appeals are filed by Original Defendant No.
In the written statement filed by defendant No.
