It was asserted that he had paid Rs.
Girjashanker had been in possession of the land under Umarsha, and was followed by these respondents.
15,000/ .
By the original agreement for sate dated September 11, 1956, the appellant be came entitled to a sale of the land on payment of Rs.
The suit was also resisted by the first and second respondents who rested their claim on the sale deed dated December 6, 1957 in their favour.
The suit was companytested by Mohsinali, and he pleaded that by the document dated November 18, 1957 the appellant had waived his rights under the agreement for sale dated September 11, 1956 and had opted for refund of the Rs.
Meanwhile, however, after the default by Umarsha but before the said decree companyld be passed, Mohainali and Quarban Hussain executed a sale deed dated December 6, 1957 in favour of Angadlal and Vijay Kishore, the successors in interest of Girjashankar, and impleaded in this appeal as the first and second respondents, transferring the site to them for Rs.
3,000/ paid by him.
The first and second respondents filed a second appeal in the High Court.
But if according to the settlement your ownership over the aforesaid plot is number companyfirmed and you are number able to get possession of the site then you may refund my earnest amount of Rs.
1,000/ by way of damages and for the refund of Rs.
1,000/ as agreed earlier and would obtain a sale deed from him according to the earlier agreement for sale, but in case the settlement did number so result he would be entitled to a refund of the Rs.
1000/ as agreed and shall get a sale deed executed from you according to the agreement of sale and you will execute it.
3,000/ paid towards the price of site.
It is denied by the appellant that any permanent companystructions have been erected on the land in dispute.
Umarsha defaulted, and therefore in terms of the companypromise the Civil Suit 13 A of 1956 was decreed in the second week of December, 1957 in favour of Mohsinali and Qurban Hussain for title and possession.
3,000/ paid by him.
It appears that a companypromise was entered into between Mohsinali and Qurban Hussain on the one side and Umarsha on the other in Civil Suit No.
That companystitutes the main basis of the decision rendered by the High Court.
Thereafter, he executed the document dated November 18, 1957 which provides Civil Suit No.
15 000/ to the former within 15 days he would be entitled to the site and would companytinue in possession as before, but in default of such payment he would cease to have any right or interest in the site and the former would be entitled to a declaratory decree of ownership and for delivery of possession.
Under that decree Mohsinali and Qurban Hussain were held entitled to ownership and delivery of possession.
On the decree being passed, the terms of the document dated November 18, 1957 took effect in favour of the appellant once, and he became entitled to the transfer of the site in his favour.
The sale deed dated December 6, 1957, executed in their favour was number companytemplated at all by the decree.
The second appeal was allowed, the first appellate decree set aside and the trial Court decree restored.
I have given this letter so that you should settle the suit amicably.
13 A of 1956 under which it was agreed that if Umarsha paid Rs.
The trial Court refused the relief for specific performance but granted a decree for Rs.
1,000/ of the price and Mohsinali and Qurban Hussain to execute a sale deed in his favour with the first and second respondents joining in the companyveyance.
13 A of 1956 between himself and certain others including Umarsha and Girjeshankar, for declaration of title and for possession, upon which the appellant than executed a further document dated November 18, 1957 by which he agreed that in case the said Civil Suit No.
2,000/ was paid later.
217 A of 1958 to the Court of the Civil Judge, Amravati alleging that one Mohsinali and Qurban Hussain had entered into an agreement for sale in his favour on September 11, 1956 for the sale of a plot measuring 100 feet by 10 feet for a sum of Rs.
4.000/ .
Of that balance, a further Rs.
A first appeal was allowed by the learned District Judge, who held that Mohsinali and Qurban Hussain had companymitted a breach of companytract, and accordingly passed a decree for specific performances and required the appellant to pay toe balance of Rs.
The appellant then filed the present suit for specific performance on refusal by Mohsinali and Qurban Hussain to execute a sale deed in his favour.
13 A of 1956 was regarded as decreed in favour of Mohsinali and Qurban Hussain for declaration of their title and for possession against Umarsha, they would succeed in obtaining possession from Girjashanker because he claimed to be in possession through Umarsha.
4,000/ .
The suit was settled in terms of the decree passed in it.
The decree did number stipulate that the dispute in the suit should be settled by a sale of the land in favour of the first and second respondents.
13 A of 1956 resulted in a settlement companyfirming Mohsinalis ownership and allowing him possession of the site he would pay Mohsinali the balance of Rs.
Subsequently, it is pleaded, Mohsinali informed the appellant of the pendency of Civil Suit No.
3,000/ .
1,000/ as earnest money and the balance was to be paid on registration of the sale deed.
It was recited by Mohsinali and Qurban Hussain in the sale deed that on the basis of the companypromise in Civil Suit No, 13 A of 1956 their ownership and possession had been established, and that number by virtue of the sale the ownership and possession belonged to the vendees.
13 A of 1956 which is filed by you in the Court of the Second Additional Judge, Amravati, is being amicably settled.
Dated 18 11 1957.
S. Pathak, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay in a suit for specific performance of a companytract.
The appellant brought Civil Suit No.
