The appellant/ plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell the suit land with one of the co-owners who was acting as the power of attorney holder for all owners. The appellant/ plaintiff paid the earnest money on the date of the said agreement and it was agreed that the remaining amount would be paid upon registration of the sale deed. The execution was to take place within six months from the date of agreement. Meanwhile, the appellant/ plaintiff paid certain additional amounts with respect to which endorsements were made on the backside of the agreement. Thereafter, another agreement was executed between the appellant/ plaintiff and the said co-owner for extending the time for execution of the sale deed. After extending the period twice by way of making entries in the subsequent agreement, it was finally agreed that the agreement to sell shall come to an end on May 31, 1997. However, by that time the said co-owner executed the sale deed in favour of third parties. Thereafter, the appellant/ plaintiff sent a legal notice to the owners calling upon them to be present in the Registrar’s office on the agreed extended date being May 31, 1997 for executing the sale deed. However, no one turned up for the same. The subsequent purchaser, who purchased the suit land moved an application for mutation of the same in their name which application was objected by the appellant/ plaintiff.
Subsequently, the Gram Panchayat during a meeting assured the appellant/ plaintiff that the sale deed would be executed in favour of the appellant/ plaintiff. Hence no legal action was initiated by the appellant/ plaintiff. However, on the last date of limitation, the appellant/ plaintiff preferred the present suit for specific performance
The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the appellant/ plaintiff upon finding that the agreement to sell was executed between the appellant/ plaintiff and the power of attorney holder of all owners of the suit land and that the time agreed between the parties of execution of sale deed was extended twice and that the appellant/ plaintiff also paid earnest money. In view of the same, the appellant/ plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Further, since the suit was filed on the last date of limitation, the same was held to be within the limitation prescribed of three years.
Aggrieved by the decision of the trial court, the subsequent buyers of the suit land preferred an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The Court noted that the initial agreement to sell the suit land which was a coparcenary property was not signed by all coparceners. Further, during the trial, the appellant/ plaintiff did not appear as a witness in the witness box. Instead, his power of attorney holder testified on his behalf which the High Court opined cannot be deemed as a statement of the appellant/ plaintiff in a civil suit of this nature. Accordingly, the High Court set aside the judgement and decree of the trial court.
As a result, the matter came up for consideration of the Supreme Court in the present appeal filed by the appellant/ plaintiff.
Source: Barandbench
