The Trial Court dismissed the suit but the High Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit.
Thereupon I replied that Souda of the house of Dagdooji was made.
Hussain Vakil Saheb.
Hayatkhan and Goverdhandas were present there.
P 1 on the very day when the agreement was entered into.
Kanhaiylal never told me anything about the Souda Chitthi of the plaintiff.
1 for the plaintiff, as follows Souda chitthi was scribed by Shrikrishna Munshi who is Munshi to Mohammed Hussain Vakil.
The value of house was fixed at Rs.
He stated that all tins talk took place at the shop of Goverdhandas.
He stated that they had numberknowledge at the time of sale deed or prior to that Dagdoo had made Souda of the same house with the plaintiff.
He further deposed I did number examine the length and breadth mentioned in the gift deed.
I do number remember the year of the gift deed.
I have numberquarrel with Chhajulal, Hayatkhan and Kanhaiyalal.
The version on behalf of the plaintiff is given by plaintiffs husband, Hemraj Singh Chauhan, witness No.
He denied that Hemraj or Chhajulal ever came to the shop of Goverdhandas to inform about the Souda.
After this talk Hemraj and his companypanion went to the house of Mohd.
15,000/ and the other for Rs.
The house of Vakil Saheb is in front of my shop.
Goverdhandas had companye to my shop before he came Hemraj Seth sic .
He also stated that he knew Dagdoo since childhood and passed daily by Dagdoos house and Chouhan Store.
In the month of March or April, in the last summer season Goverdhan Das was sitting at my shop at about 10 or 10 13 a.m. In the meantime Hemraj Chouhan, Krishan Mishrlal and Dagdoo bai all these came to my shop from Chouhan Stores.
They both bear my signature and the thumb impression of my mother.
The house of Vakil Saheb is adjacent to the house of Hayatkhan and he resides on the upper storey.
Hemraj Seth said to Goverdhandas bhai that Souda Chitthi in companynection with the house was executed and he asked him number to visit D lgdoo.
He deposed I had numberknowledge about the Souda Chitthi of the plaintiff at the time of executing the sale deed or prior to that.
According to the plaintiff, Seth Goverdhandas, appellant, had express numberice of the agreement dated March 1, 1960 Ext.
I did number take any measurement of the house.
He also stated that the measurements mentioned in the sale deed were written from the gift deed that was with Dagdoo and that he had read the gift deed but did number know its year or date.
Hayatkhan questioned as to why he was accompanied with so many persons ?
After scribing Souda chitthi all of us went to Vakil Saheb for showing Souda Chitthi for going to the house of Vakil Saheb we people crossed the road which is to the front side of the shop and reached the shop of Hayat Khan.
Having obtained certificate of fitness from the High Court, the appellants have filed this appeal before us.
On the very day I went with my mother and settled by putting everything on paper.
10,000/ , were to be sold, one to him and the other to Goverdhandas.
Ballabhdas, witness No.
He asked me my mother to make signature on the sale deed.
2 for the appellants, is the brother of Govinddas.
I had learnt that Goverdhandas also was to purchase this house and he was roaming about since the morning.
He denied that he ever got the house measured or that Kanhaiyalal told him anything in companynection with the Souda of the house.
He never talked about the Souda Chitthi executed in favour of the plaintiff.
M. Sikri, C.J. Shrimati Shantibai, respondent No.
Chajulal never came to me or my shop.
In cross examination he stated that the statements of all the witnesses in this case were recorded in his presence.
1 hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff brought a suit for the specific performance of an agreement dated March 1, 1960, to sell the property in suit situate at Bombay Bazar, Khandwa, executed by Dagdoo, respondent No.
Two sale deeds dated 17 3 60 shown .
I had also told him that Souda of the house of Dagdoo was made.
2 hereinafter referred to as the vendor and Dr. Govinddas and Seth Goverdhandas, defendants appellants before us, who had purchased the said property.
