Dinesh Maheshwari JUDGMENT
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
1. The Appellant herein (since deceased and represented by his legal representatives) had filed the suit for specific performance of Agreement to Sell, being O.S. No. 392 of 1979, that was decreed by the Court of II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar by the judgment and decree dated 10.12.1981. However, the decree so passed by the Trial Court was reversed by the Court of IX Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in its judgment and decree dated 03.07.1995 in Appeal No. 54 of 1982, essentially on the ground that the Plaintiff had failed to aver and prove his continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in its impugned judgment dated 10.12.2007 in R.S.A. No. 931 of 1995, while dismissing the second appeal filed by the Plaintiff-appellant, affirmed the decree passed by the First Appellate Court. Aggrieved, the Plaintiff-Appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. Briefly put, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that on 13.08.1979, the Plaintiff-Appellant filed the suit aforesaid with the averments that the Defendant-Respondent had executed an agreement dated 16/17.04.1975 in his favour for sale of the property in question, being House Number 102 at Faithful Ganj, Kanpur Nagar, for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/-; and that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was paid as earnest money while the remaining amount was payable at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. The Plaintiff-Appellant further averred that after the agreement, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 came to be promulgated prohibiting transfer of the property without permission of the Competent Authority; and the Defendant-Respondent was required to obtain such permission but failed to do so despite requests. The Plaintiff-Appellant yet further averred that on 06.05.1979, he served a notice on the Defendant-Respondent for obtaining permission from the Ceiling Authorities and for execution of the sale deed to which, the Defendant-Respondent sent a reply dated 06.07.1979 stating ignorance about the agreement and sought a copy thereof for proper reply while alleging that his signatures were obtained on some papers in relation to a suit filed by the State Bank of India. The Plaintiff-Appellant stated that these were the false pretexts taken by the Defendant who was bound to execute the sale deed for the house in question after seeking necessary permission; and for him having failed to do so, the suit was being filed for enforcing specific performance of the agreement.
3. The Defendant-respondent, while denying the plaint averments, inter alia, alleged that he was involved as a guarantor in relation to the loan taken by a firm M/s. Adam Textiles from the State Bank of India and his house in question was hypothecated to the said bank; and when the bank threatened to take action against him, the Plaintiff, who was known to him, assured of contesting the matter on his behalf and persuaded him to hand over possession of the house in question on rental basis. The Defendant alleged that he got deceived on persuasion of the Plainti........