three Thousand, five hundred.
5,000/ , before the execution of the sale deed then the said amount may be deducted from the sale price and the plaintiffs shall obtain assurance for the same and the defendant Nos.
4 to 6 were cultivating the land in question for about 40 years d the location of the land in question at about 20 kilometres from Solapur Municipal Corporation area and e the horticulture growth of the area in question.
1 and number for the sale of property.
Aggrieved by the decree so passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff Nos.
In its judgment and decree dated 13.04.1984, the Trial Court declined the relief of specific performance but decreed the suit for the alternative relief of money recovery.
As the agreement was number singed by 23/3/1966 the plaintiffs have issued legal numberice dated 5/4/1966 to the defendant number.1 to 3 calling upon them to execute the sale deed which indicated that the numberice was issued at the earliest after the dead line for signing the sale deed was over.
1 to 3 to dispose of the, it is number explained why the supplementary agreement was got executed instead of getting the sale deed executed.
In the instant case, the plaintiffs were required to give numberice after 23/3/2006 and number before that and such a numberice was given on 5/4/1966.
On the basis of the findings and observations aforesaid, the High Court proceeded to decree the suit for specific performance but with the stipulations that the plaintiffs would be entitled to receive possession of the land in question from defendant Nos.
The defendant No.
64 admeasuring 50 acres and 39 gunthas, situated at village Gulvanchi, Taluka North Solapur1.
4 to 6 were hit by the doctrine of lis pendens, but the same would number affect the validity of sale deeds executed in their favour, as the alleged agreements were executed only for the purpose of companylateral security for the loan advanced.
It was further stated that the said amount of Rs.2000/ would be adjusted against the balance of Rs.19,451/ and the remaining amount of Rs.17,451/ would be given while executing the sale deed and the sale deed would be executed within the time originally specified.
1 to 3 to execute the sale deed on 5.4.1966 means after the date on which the sale deed was got to be executed according to the terms laid down in the agreement of sale.
When the Plaintiffs had sufficient companysideration in their hand to make payment of the entire price of the land and when there was number difficulty for the Defendants Nos.
2 p.a.
The First Appellate Court also held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their companytinuous willingness and readiness to perform their part of the companytract, particularly for the reason that despite stating the availability of sufficient companysideration with them, the plaintiffs got executed supplementary agreement rather than the sale deed.
4 to 6 were number bona fide purchasers of suit property.
The Trial Court, inter alia, observed that the sale companysideration of Rs.
87 issued by the plaintiffs being after the period before which the sale deed was to be executed cannot be used for proving that the Plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract.
500/ from the plaintiffs and they handed over possession of the remaining part of the land in question to the plaintiffs.
Date 24.11.1965 12.1.2.
1 and having put an endorsement on the document in question.
2,000/ to the defendant Nos.
However, Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH the High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed the second appeal Date 2019.08.13 160637 IST Reason 1 Hereinafter referred to as the suit property or the land in question.
preferred by the companytesting plaintiffs Second Appeal No.
The plaintiffs averred that they were ready to perform their part of the companytract but the defendant Nos.
As numbericed, the Trial Court chose number to answer this question in view of its finding on the nature of transaction.
22,951/ and that a sum of Rs.
The plaintiffs further averred that they served a numberice on the defendant Nos.
The possession of the land was never delivered to the Plaintiffs in pursuance of the agreement of sale.
These defendants companytended that they were bona fide purchasers having numberknowledge of the aforementioned transaction between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.
The Plaintiffs have, thus failed to prove that they were ready and willing to perform their part of companytract of getting the sale deed executed within the time limit proving in the earlier agreement of sale.
3,500/ against the sale companysideration of Rs.
This apart, and as numbericed, even at the time of entering into the agreement, the plaintiffs made payment of a sum of Rs.
However, in view of its findings on material issues, the Trial Court held that the plaintiffs were number entitled for specific performance and recovery of possession but then, directed that the amount paid by the plaintiffs i.e., the sum of Rs.
With these averments, the plaintiffs sought the relief of specific performance of the agreement for sale and in the alternative, also prayed for recovery of earnest money with interest and for damages.
500/ was paid by the plaintiffs whereas a sum of Rs.
The Plaintiffs issued the numberice asking the Defendant Nos.
3500/ Rs.
4 to 6 by paying them a companypensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/ per acre and the said defendants in turn shall execute the sale deeds jointly and or severally in favour of the plaintiffs immediately on receipt of the companypensation amount.
It may also be numbericed that an application IA No.
5 defendant No.
The numberice was number required to give before the last date fixed for signing the sale deed i.e. 23/3/1966.
4 to 6 within the stipulated period of two months, the said defendants shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/ per acre to the plaintiffs within a period of two months therefrom so as to companyfirm their ownership over the suit land.
Fresh decree be drawn in the above terms by the Registry and forward the same to the trial companyrt for its execution.
11,951/ , after deducting Rs.
10,000/ per acre.
4 to 6 were number bona fide purchasers while observing that even if they had alleged want of knowledge about the agreement in question, given the size of the village and the population thereof, they were aware of the pending litigation.
1 to 3 had numberobjection to do so, instead of getting an agreement of sale executed.
On 30.11.1987, the First Appellate Court, while dismissing the companytesting plaintiffs appeal Civil Appeal No.
The First Appellate Court, on re appreciation of evidence, affirmed the principal findings of the Trial Court on the nature of transaction, while observing that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the amount in question was number that of a loan advanced, as companytended by the defendant Nos.
The First Appellate Court decided this question against the plaintiffs while observing as under As discussed above, according to the terms of the agreement of sale, the sale deed was to be executed on or about Chaitra Shubha 1, Shake 1888 means on 23rd March, 1966 according to the Gregorian Calender.
4 Hereinafter also referred to as the T.P. Act.
Her statement, with reference to her understanding of the matter, companyld only be interpreted to mean that at the given moment, she was number off hand in possession of the money to make payment but such an expression in her statement cannot lead to the companyclusion that making payment of the remaining sale companysideration was beyond her capacity or that she was number willing to perform her part of the companytract.
Out of the total land of 50 acres 39 gunthas, 25 acres of land was having the crops of groundnuts and toor and those crops would be harvested and possession would be given by the end of November, 1965.
12.4.1.
4 respondent No.
If it is proved that, perhaps the possession of the land received by the Plaintiffs by way of part performance, is taken by the Defendants and the possession is of the Defendants only, then the Defendants may be ordered to hand over the land.
By numberstretch of imagination these two agreements at Exhs.85 and 86 companyld be termed as and by way of security for a loan transaction.
In order to appreciate the relevant features of this case, essentially pertaining to the reliefs claimed under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 2, the status and capacity of parties to this litigation may be taken numbere of at the outset and as follows 2.1.
In regard to this question relating to the nature of transaction, the First appellate Court specified the circumstances being relied upon by it in paragraph 17 of its judgment as follows Following are the circumstances which reveal that the documents on which the Plaintiffs have relied upon that the Defendants Nos.
As regards the defendant Nos.
In view of its finding on the nature of transaction, the Trial Court observed that the issue regarding readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs did number survive for companysideration.
With reference to these facts and events, the High Court was of opinion that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract.
6,000/ , be returned to them, together with interest at the rate of 6 per annum from the date of decree until payment.
In the suit for specific performance leading to this appeal, the respondent No.
5,000/ towards encumbrances and, therefore, agreed to receive remaining Rs.
500/ while it was also agreed by the vendors that the property carried encumbrance to the tune of Rs.
2 respondent No.
1, 2 4 preferred second appeal before the High Court.
11,000/ , the vendees shall pay the remaining amount of Rs.
On the question of readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs, the High Court analysed the chronology of events, being that, as per the terms mentioned in the first agreement, the sale deed was to be executed by or on 23.03.1966 and on the vendors failure to execute the sale deed, legal numberice dated 05.04.1966 was issued, which led to the execution of supplementary agreement dated 28.04.1966.
5,500/ was earlier paid as earnest money as against the total sale companysideration of Rs.
As companypared to the total price for the land agreed to be sold, a partly sum was paid towards the advance payment of the price.
4 to 6 shall pay Rs.
The First Appellate Court affirmed the finding that the defendant Nos.
1 to 3.
Even otherwise, during the pendency of the suit the defendant number.1 to 3 were estopped from transferring the suit land in view of the embargo of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and, therefore, the sale deeds in favour of defendant number.4 and 5 and defendant number6 executed by defendant number.1 to 3 are required to be held as illegal 7.4.
By way of advance, an amount of Rs.3,500/ was received and the remaining amount of Rs.19,451/ would be paid at the time of signing the sale deed.
Other just and proper orders may be passed.
It further states that the suit land had an encumbrances of additional Rs.5000/ which was to be discharged by the plaintiffs and balance amount of Rs.11,951/ was to be paid by the plaintiffs at the time of execution of the sale deed.
the defendant Nos.
22,951/ was a peculiar one, because in the numbermal companyrse, the parties do number fix the companysideration amount in such an odd figure and even the rate of Rs.
The plaintiffs shall pay the companypensation within two months from today.
They further asserted that though the agreement was originally executed only in favour of plaintiff No.
Today and earnest amount of Rs.
The reliefs claimed in the plaint, being relevant for present purposes, may be take numbere of as follows The Plaintiffs pray that, The Defendants may be ordered to execute the sale deed in respect of the land described in plaint paragraph 1, by accepting Rs.16,951/ from the plaintiffs and to mention in the sale deed that, in case, the Defendants can number ward off the charges on the land, being the sum of Rs.
1, while deposing as DW1 attempted to suggest that he had approached the plaintiff No.
However, this application was rejected on 24.02.2012.
5,000/ on the land in question and, therefore, after deducting in all a sum of Rs.
The admission of plaintiff No.
It is also numbericed that the subordinate Courts proceeded to doubt if the transaction was at all intended to be of sale while questioning as to why the parties fixed the companysideration in odd figures i.e., Rs.
22,938.75 and number Rs.
The High Court further ordered that on failure of the plaintiff to make the requisite payment within a period of two months, the defendant Nos.
Her statement is required to be visualised in the backdrop of the fact that her husband, plaintiff No.
In case, if it happens that, for any reason sale deed pertaining to the suit land can number be executed in favour of the plaintiffs, then the defendants may be ordered to pay to the plaintiffs the sum accepted by the defendants towards the earnest money Rupees 6,000/ and damages thereon at the rate of Rs.
1 was already on record as respondent No.
Be that as it may, the estate of the original companytesting plaintiffs plaintiffs Nos.
The defendants had agreed that the sale deed will be signed by Chaitra Shudha 1 Shake 1888 or around that time.
Moreover, and much before the stipulated date of execution of sale deed, they made another payment of Rs.
3 seeking loan to the tune of Rs.
All our heirs shall sign the sale deed.
5,000/ , which was to be adjusted against the sale companysideration.
The Defendants may be ordered to pay to the plaintiffs the entire companyt, including advocates fee, of the present suit.
The Notice Exb.
22,938.75 and as to why the parties agreed for Rs.
10,000/ per acre to the plaintiffs so as to companyfirm their title and ownership over the suit land.
The defendant No.
The Plaintiff Nos.
3 with the submissions that the legal representative of the respondent No.
1 to 3 vendees .
After the demise of plaintiff No.
After taking the evidence and having heard the parties, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit for specific performance while recording the basic finding to the effect that the documents in question the alleged agreement for sale as also the supplementary agreement were, in fact, executed as security for loan and number for sale of the suit property to the plaintiffs.
1 to 6 may be ordered to join the defendant No.1 to 3, in execution of the sale deed.
1 plaintiff No.
4 to 6 on making payment at the rate of Rs.
The agreement for sale would be binding on the successor of the vendors.
The vendors 6 This plea of the defendants as regards nature of transaction stands rejected for what has been discussed in paragraphs 12 and its sub paragraphs hereinbefore.
1 to 3.
12.1.1.
There had number been even a remote suggestion in the documents in question that there was any loan or borrowing transaction between the parties and the said documents were being executing towards security.
2 and 3 respectively.
4 to 6 were hit by the doctrine of lis pendens as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 18824 and that the defendant Nos.
She is respondent No.
It proceeded to state that the said property was being offered to the plaintiffs by way of sale at the rate of Rs.450/ per acre.
However, the First Appellate Court observed that even though the transactions with defendant Nos.
6,000/ from the plaintiffs under the agreement dated 20.09.1965 and also stated that they had delivered possession of a part of the land in question on 14.11.1965 and that they had delivered the possession of entire land to the vendees in part performance.
12.4.2.
The High Court also directed that the said land shall be used for the purpose of self cultivation or horticulture.
1 to 3.
1 and 2 must number be interested in purchasing the land.
1 to 3 in the suit in question.
The postponement of the sale deed to which the Plaintiffs gave companysent clearly suggests that the parties were in fact number intending to execute the sale deed.
The learned companynsel has elaborated on the submission that even the numberice seeking performance was sent by the plaintiffs only on 05.04.1966 i.e., thirteen days after 23.03.1966, which was the last date prescribed by the agreement for execution of the sale deed and even at the later stage after the numberice dated 05.04.1966, the vendees settled for a supplementary agreement and did number seek specific performance, which clearly shows want for readiness and willingness on their part to perform their obligations under the agreement.
The plaintiffs are entitled to get the decree of specific performance of the companytract Sathe Khat dated 20/9/1965 and the Supplementary Sathe Khat dated 28/4/1966 executed in their favour.
6,000/ but further agreed for adjustment of Rs.
As numbericed, another payment of Rs.
By way of specific performance of companytract the plaintiffs at the first instance shall be entitled to receive the possession of the suit land from defendant number.
This defendant also admitted having obtained another sum of Rs.
In the supplementary agreement dated 28.04.1966, the vendors acknowledged that they had received Rs.
3 that she was number possessed of sufficient funds cannot be read in isolation and it cannot be companycluded that she was number possessed of sufficient means to pay the remaining sale companysideration.
Costs in cause.
The defendant No.
The cause of action to issue the numberice will arise only when either of the parties failed to execute the sale deed by the date mentioned in the agreement for sale.
11,921/ at the time of execution of the sale deed.
In this regard, the High Court referred to a the alternative relief of money recovery as claimed in the plaint b the decree as passed by the Trial Court c the fact that the defendant Nos.
The operative part of the judgment impugned reads as under In the premises, the second appeal is hereby allowed and the decree of the trial companyrt as companyfirmed by the Lower Appellate Court is hereby substituted as under The suit is decreed.
It was further averred that crops were standing on the suit property and hence, possession to the extent of half portion thereof was to be handed over by the end of the year of 1965 and that in part performance of agreement, the plaintiffs made payment of a further sum of Rs.
1 to 3 to execute the sale deed and, obviously, fresh negotiations were held thereafter and hence, the supplementary agreement was executed.
The encumbrances shall be extinguished or Havala shall be given and the said amounts shall be deducted at the time of execution of sale deed and thus the land would be free from any charge.
Though the factum of delivery of possession is disputed by the defendants but such a dispute does number carry any adverse impact on the rights of the plaintiffs to seek specific performance.
In response to the said numberice the defendant number.1 to 3 held fresh negotiations with the plaintiffs and the supplementary agreement for sale at Exh.86 was signed on 28/4/1966 and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court are manifestly erroneous.
3a to 3d in this appeal.
546 of 1984 , affirmed the decree of the Trial Court.
450/ per acre, the total companysideration for the land in question would companye to Rs.
4 to 6 in the suit in question, as being the purchasers of the suit property after filing of the suit.3 2.4.
2,000/ from the plaintiff No.
1 as against the recitals in the agreements.
450/ per acre did number match with the companysideration amount stated in the agreement.
The sa le deed of the transactions.
3, executed the document in question as security while taking loan at the interest rate of 1 per cent per month.
He, however, denied having received any other amount or having delivered possession of the suit property.
5 6 of 2013 for substitution of legal representatives of deceased respondent No.
The Trial Court also raised doubts on the suggestion of the plaintiffs that possession of the land in question was handed over to them.
2,000/ was made by the plaintiffs to the defendant No.
The Trial Court, of companyrse, held that the transactions effected in favour of defendant Nos.
5,000/ towards encumbrances and on payment of this amount, the defendant Nos.
1 late Shri Chandulal Balaprasad Parandekar, who was the husband of plaintiff No.
1, the names of other plaintiffs were incorporated at the behest of plaintiff No.3 and that they had never parted with possession of the land in question.
1 and 2, who in turn, had advanced the loan to them.
In view of its findings, the First Appellate Court affirmed the decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
The sale deed is to be executed by us and to be taken by you.
The plaintiffs also averred that in this manner, a sum of Rs.
On companypletion of pleadings of parties, the Trial Court framed as many as 20 issues for determination of the questions involved in the matter.
1 to 3 had agreed to sell the suit land, were for the purpose of companylateral security to the loan advanced and the intention of the parties to them was number to sell the land as mentioned in those documents.
1 to 3 companyld only show re affirmation of the intention of the parties towards the sale transaction.
3 and for companydonation of delay were granted on 05.08.2013.
The suit was filed by them jointly with the plaintiff No.
2 , and respondent No.
22,951/ , the learned companynsel has companytended that such payment being wholly inadequate as against the alleged sale companysideration, the plaintiffs companyld number have been companysidered ready and willing to perform their part of companytract.
2 and the legal representatives of deceased respondent Nos.
These defendants asserted that the plaintiff No.
The defendant Nos.
1 2 is duly represented by their daughter plaintiff No.
2,000/ against the sale companysideration.
11,961/ and the sale deed would be executed in their favour.
Such hair splitting exercise by the Trial Court, that on the agreed rate, sale companysideration ought to have been Rs.
The Trial Court also held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they were handed over possession of the suit property in pursuance of the agreements in question.
Further, with reference to the fact that at the time of executing supplementary agreement, an amount of Rs.
thereafter executed the supplementary agreement and the plaintiffs made payment of yet another sum of Rs.
The plaintiffs have alleged that they lost possession later on.
1 to 3 to execute the sale deed and, therefore, after this numberice the Plaintiffs ought to have got the sale deed executed if at all the Defendants Nos.
2 , respondent No.
The First Appellate Court even observed that as against the sale companysideration, only a paltry amount was paid in advance and questioned as to why the supplementary agreement was executed after serving of numberice.
4 and 6 may be substituted on record.
In case the plaintiffs jointly and or severally fail to pay the companypensation of Rs.10,000/ per acre to the defendant number.
Of companyrse, defendant No.
On the other hand, the respondent Nos.
For that, I have received Rs.
As to whether the possession of the land in question was delivered to the plaintiffs or number, companyld number have been taken as a factor decisive as regards nature of transaction.
1 to 3 vendors though admitted the execution of agreement dated 20.09.1965 as also supplementary agreement dated 28.04.1966 but then, claimed that the said agreements were executed only as companylateral security for a loan advanced by the plaintiff No.
3 of 2010 was moved in this appeal pointing out demise of respondent No.
1 to 3 as part payment of the total sale companysideration and the remaining sale companysideration was settled at Rs.
1 and the respondent No.
At the end of this document there is an endorsement made on 24/11/1965 to the effect that an additional amount of Rs.2000/ was received by the defendant number.1 to 3 on that day as the amount was required to be paid for the acquisition of house plot and purchase of buffaloes.
3 having expired, his legal representatives are joined as respondent Nos.
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff Nos.
Learned companynsel would submit that the question as to whether the agreements in question were agreements for sale or were only executed towards security, had been of fact and there was numberoccasion for the High Court to upturn the companycurrent findings of subordinate Courts that were returned after due appreciation of evidence.
2 herein and the companytest in this litigation is essentially between her and the appellants subsequent purchasers .
The numberice dated 5.4.1966 was issued by the Plaintiffs asking the Defendants Nos.
It was necessary for the Plaintiffs to prove that before Chaitra Shudha 1, Shake 1888 means 23rd March, 1966 they were ready and willing to get the sale deed executed in terms of the agreement of sale but there is numberevidence to prove that before Chaitra Shudha 1, Shake 1888 the Plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of companytract.
The vendors also stated that there was a charge of approximately Rs.
3,500/ was paid as earnest money.
The plaintiffs filed the suit aforesaid with the averments that the defendant Nos.
6,000/ was paid to the defendant Nos.
1 to 3 failed to execute the sale deed for the land in question.
2000 in cash from you.
The recitals in the supplementary agreement even suggested about the vendors having delivered possession of the property in question.
2.3 The appellants of this appeal were subsequently joined as defendant Nos.
5000 5500/ through a broker and, at the instance of the plaintiff No.
6 had been the plaintiff Nos.
With reference to these factors, the High Court companysidered it appropriate to fix the market value of the land in question at Rs.
1 to 3 had executed an agreement dated 20.09.1965 for sale of the suit property for a companysideration of Rs.
Therefore, the plaintiffs were left to make payment of about half of the sale companysideration.
19451 is to be paid at the time of sale deed.
District Judge, Solapur by way of the judgment and decree dated 30.11.1987.
In our view, looking to the dealings of the parties, this circumstance about execution of the supplementary agreement only strengthens the case of the plaintiffs rather than operating against them.
1 and 2 was taken on record as plaintiff No.
In their written statement, the defendant Nos.
1 to 3 were liable to execute the sale deed in their favour within a time span of 15 days.
1 respondent No.
4 and 5 were subsequently impleaded in the said suit as they had purchased 25 acres of the land in question by way of a sale deed dated 10.07.1978, which was executed by the defendant No.
6 was also impleaded as a subsequent purchaser of the remaining portion of the land in question, by way of another sale deed dated 18.09.1968.
22,951/ .
10,000/ per acre, whereafter, all the defendants shall jointly and or severally execute the sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs.
On the other hand, other applications IA Nos.
Therefore, respondent Nos.
The land shall be used for self cultivation or horticulture.
The First Appellate Court though adverted to this question but answered the same against the plaintiffs, essentially for the reasons that they had failed to prove if before the stipulated date of execution of sale document, they were ready and willing to get the sale deed executed and there was numberexplanation as to why supplementary agreement was got executed.
1 and an endorsement for adjustment of such payment against the sale price was made on this very document on 24.11.1965 as follows I have purchased the house building and also purchased she buffalos.
Significantly, in the supplementary agreement, the defendants number only acknowledged the receipt of part companysideration to the tune of Rs.
However, in order to succeed in their claim, the plaintiffs were required to aver and prove that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the companytract.
Further, according to the learned companynsel, readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs has to be demonstrated during the period specified in the agreement for execution and the High Court has erred in assuming the readiness and willingness on part of the plaintiffs even companytrary to the evidence on record.
1 to 3 on 05.04.1966 for performance of the agreement in question and, on receipt of this numberice, the said defendants executed a supplementary agreement for sale they accepted an additional amount of Rs.
3 had introduced them to the plaintiff Nos.
3 to 5 of this appeal had been the original defendant Nos.
1 herein and who expired during the pendency of suit.
On the companytrary, the recitals and stipulations in the said agreements had only been in affirmation of the agreement for sale and of the receipt of part payment from time to time against the sale companysideration.
1, the daughter of plaintiff Nos.
The remaining amount or Rs.
1 to 3 on 24.09.1965 and the said defendants handed over possession of 25 acres of the land in question to the plaintiffs on 14.11.1965.
1, 2 and 6 of this appeal were standing in the capacity of plaintiffs vendees .
4 defendant No.
176 of 1988 by its impugned judgment and decree dated 01.08.2007 and decreed the suit for the principal relief of specific performance, albeit on enhanced sale companysideration with reference to the market value of the land in question.
6 plaintiff No.
The expense to be incurred for sale deed are to borne by you.
The evidence on the part of the defendants in this case remains rather vague and sketchy and it is difficult to accept the oral assertions of defendant No.
After the findings aforementioned, the High Court examined the question of relief to be granted.
Note The sale deed of the dealings property shall be executed in your name or in the names of other persons suggested by you.
1, had expired and she had succeeded to his estate.
83 of 1968 for specific performance of agreement for sale of agricultural land in Survey No.
The agreements forming the subject matter of this litigation were executed by 2 Hereinafter also referred to as the Act of 1963.
The sale transaction would be companypleted on Chaitra Sud I, Shake 1, 1888 or thereabout.
22,951/ and while observing that when as per the documents, the land was being sold Rs.
And the sum of Rupees 15,000/ towards the losses on account of breach of Agreement by the Defendants and it may also be ordered that the encumbrances in respect of the said amount has been placed on the suit land.
2 in this appeal.
1 to 3 vendors in favour of the plaintiff Nos.
Briefly put, the relevant background aspects of the matter and respective stands of the parties had been as follows 3 As far as feasible, the parties have been referred in this judgment as per their status in the suit.
2,000/ was received by the defendant Nos.
When the sale deed was number executed by 23.03.1966, the plaintiffs served numberice on 05.04.1966.
Dinesh Maheshwari, J. This appeal by special leave arises out of a civil suit No.
1, 2 4 preferred the first appeal that was companysidered and dismissed by III Addl.
The Lower Appellate Court was number right in turning down the findings on this issue recorded by the trial companyrt.
