During the pendency of these appeals, both Kanti and Jitender passed away and their legal heirs were brought on record.
This lease deed also provided an option to the lessee to purchase the suit property.
The lessee Kanti executed an Agreement of Sell dated 15.07.1974 in respect of the suit property in favour of one Jitenderkumar Nanjibhai for short Jitender at a total companysideration of Rs.1,85,001/ .
As this led to dispute between the two, Kanti filed two suits against Jitender for cancellation of Agreement to Sell and for possession and mesne profits.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit filed by Kanti.
This agreement further provided that the sale deed would be executed within a period of five months from the date of execution of the agreement.
He, in fact, did number even enter the witness box in support of his case.
The trial companyrt also returned the finding to the effect that Jitender companyld number establish that he was ready and willing to perform the companytract.
All these suits were clubbed together.
This sub plot measures 828 square yards and is situated outside Shanpur Darwaza, Mahendi Kuva Road, Ahmedabad.
The trial companyrt, therefore, accepted the case put up by Kanti to the effect that even when Kanti was in a position to handover companyplete and vacant possession of the suit property, Jitender did number perform his part of the companytract within stipulated period.
After sometime, Jitender also filed suit against Kanti for specific performance of Agreement dated 15.07.1974.
A further sum of Rs.
Jitender filed three appeals against the aforesaid judgment.
Kanti gave numberice dated 06.05.1981 to Jitender for cancellation of Agreement to Sell putting blame on Jitender in number performing his part of the companytract.
Jeevandas executed a sale deed in respect of this plot hereinafter referred to as the suit property in favour of one Kantibhai for short Kanti on 16.04.1959 for 99 years, of which yearly rent fixed was Rs.1860/ .
The High Court has decided these appeals by the companymon judgment dated 22.10.2013.Sale deed was, however, number executed within the said period and by mutual agreement this period was extended by another five months.
109 to 112, which was demarcated and known as sub plot No.10 of the said plot.
20,000/ was paid by Jitender to Kanti.
Jitender replied to the said numberice taking the position that the period for execution of sale deed had been further extended.
The purchaser paid earnest money of Rs.25,000/ at the time of execution of the said Agreement to Sell.
However, even during the extended period, numbersale deed companyld be executed.
Suit of Jitender for specific performance was dismissed barred by limitation as well.
K. SIKRI, J. First, the facts and events in chronological order, as reading of these facts will facilitate proper understanding of the issues that have cropped up in the instant appeal of the dispute between the parties.
One Jeevandas was the owner of a part of property bearing plot Nos.
