Devki Nandan vs Smt. Gokli Bai and others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This judgment will dispose of R. F. A. Nos. 1437 and 1827 of 1979 as both are in the nature of cross appeals, and thus the question involved is common in both the cases.

The Plaintiff Davki Nandan filed the suit for possession of land measuring 594 kanals 5 marlas and land measuring 107 kanals 13 marlas by specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 9.3.1966 Ex. P1 entered into allegedly by Defendant No. 1 Smt. Gokli Bai with him and which according to him was renewed by an agreement dated 8.3.1969 Ex. P7. Gokli Bai Defendant is an evacuee from West Pakistan and she was allotted suit land in two villages Garha and Birmi. The land originally allotted to her was revalued and it was found that she was further entitled to land measuring 5 standards acres and 3/4 units as per decision of the Settlement Officer and Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 22.9.1966. Originally, Gokli Bai had entered into an agreement of sale of her land with Sarvshri Ram Dass and Amir Chand sons of Balaki Ram on 26.2.1965 vide agreement mark 1.

The Plaintiff alleged that aforesaid Ram Dass and Amir Chand subsequently transferred the rights in favour of the Plaintiff by making an endorsement on the back of the agreement mark I dated 23.6.1965 by receiving a sum of Rs. 12,720/-. (Rs. 12,000/- was paid by Ram Dass and Amir Chand as earnest money to Gokli Bai and Rs. 720 -they got by way of interest). Later on, Gokli Bai entered into an agreement of sale with Devki Nandan Plaintiff on 9.3.1966 Ex. P1 whereby she agreed to sell the land allotted and to be further allotted to her. The total price fixed was Rs. 26,956/-. According to the Plaintiff out of that Rs. 26,756/- have already been paid and he had been put into possession of 20 standard acres 1 unit of the land in dispute in part performance of the agreement. The sale deed was to be executed by Gokli Bai through her attorney Paras Ram Defendants No. 2. The sale deed was to be executed after getting permanent rights of the property allotted to Gokli Bai. If Gokli Bai failed to execute and got the sale deed registered then the vendee-Plaintiff could get the sale deed registered through the process of court. It was further pleaded that subsequently Paras Ram, Defendant No. 2 acting as attorney of Gokli Bai for purposes of execution and registration of the sale deed extended the period for sate by a writing dated 8.3.1969 Ex. P7 and thus kept the contract alive. The Plaintiff had already paid Rs. 26,756 to Gokli Bai who in turn had put the Plaintiff in possession of the land allotted to her by that time vide Report Roznamcha dated 11.3.1966 Ex. P24. When the Plaintiff came to know that permanent rights regarding the property in dispute had been granted to Gokli Bai and her case for further allotment of land measuring 5 Standard Acres 3/4 units had already been decided in her favour, and she had now become greedy due to rise in the market value of the property and she had also taken steps to sell away the total land allotted to her to other persons for a higher price in violation of the terms and condition of the agreement of sale entered into between the parties, he filed the present suit. According. to the plaint, the Plaintiff had been at all material times and was now ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

The suit has been contested by Gokli Bai Defendant No. 1 and her son-in-law Dhano Ram Defendant No. 3. It was pleaded that Defendant No. 3 Dhano Ram was neither the attorney of Gokli Bai nor he is a necessary party to the present suit. It was further alleged that the agreement dated 26.2.1965 entered into by Gokali Bai. with Ram Dass Amir Chand was not acted upon by the parties nor had Ram Dass and Amir Chand aforesaid fulfilled their part of the contract with the result that their rights were extinguished by lapse of time and by their act and conduct. It was denied that any agreement of sale took place between the Plaintiff and Gokli Bai Defendant regarding the suit land or that any rights or the possession of the land in dispute under "the sale agreement were ever transferred in favour of the Plaintiff as alleged in the plaint. It was also denied that any rights were transferred by Ram Dass and Amar Chand in favour of the Plaintiff or that there was variation and novation of the said agreement of sale by the Plaintiff and Gokli Bai. According to Gokli Bai, the Plaintiff was acting as her Mukhtiar in the allotment of her land and thus fiduciary relationship was created between them. She being an old, illitrate and helpless lady, the plainitff had taken advantage of such fiduciary relationship. The Plaintiff had fabricated some documents in his favour and the same were null and void and ineffective and not binding upon her. It was further pleaded that no amount of consideration was fixed or passed under any such agreement for sale between the Plaintiff and Gokli Bai nor had Gokli Bai ever appointed Paras Ram Defendant No. 2 as her attorney as alleged by the Plaintiff. Thus there was no agreement of sale with the Plaintiff nor was there any extension of the agreement while on the other hand. Paras Ram is a party man of the Plaintiff and in connivance with each other they have falsely fabricated certain documents which are null and void and not binding upon the Defendants. The Defendants also tried to explain that the permanent rights were granted to Gokli Bai in two stages and that permanent rights of the land measuring 5 standard acres 3/4 units have also been granted to her and that she has entered into an agreement to sell the land regarding which permanent rights have been transferred to her with Kehar Singh and others. She also averred that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the relief of specific performance of the agreement, if any. According to her, the land in dispute is cultivable one since about 6 years before the institution of the suit and therefore it was denied that the Plaintiff had made it fit for cultivation or that the Plaintiff had spent any amount on the suit land for that purpose. According to Gokli Bai, the suit land was in her possession through her tenants Kehar Singh, Mehar Singh and Shamsher Singh upto 1972 but the Plaintiff taking advantage of the temporary injunction granted in his favour during the pendency of the suit, has taken forcible possession of the part of the land in suit. The plea of the suit being barred by time was also taken.

Replication was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff wherein he reiterated the averment made in the plaint and denied the counter averments made to the contrary in the written statement. It was asserted that the suit is within time. However, it was admitted that he was acting as Mukhtiar of Gokli Bai Defendant in allotment of her land. From the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-

Whether the suit is within time ? OPP

Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of the parties and causes of action ? OPD

Whether the Defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement of sale with the Plaintiff and recovered Rs. 26756/- as earnest money ? OPP

Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement of sale deed dated 93.1966 and 8.3.1969 ? OPP

Whether the Plaintiff entered into possession in part performance of the agreement of sale ? OPP

Whether is the effect on the present suit of the agreement dated 26.2.1965 entered into between the Defendant No. 1 on one hand and Ram Dass Amir Chand on the other hand ? OPD

Whether there was fiduciary relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant and its effect ? OPD

Relief.

Under issue No. 1 the trial Court found that the present suit was within time. Issue No. 2 was decided against the Defendants and in favour of the Plaintiff. Issues Nos. 3 and 6 were discussed together and it was concluded that execution of the sale deed Ex. PI does not stand proved. Accordingly, under issue No. 3 it is held that Defendant Gokli Bai had not entered into agreement of sale with the Plaintiff although she had received an amount of Rs. 21900 from Devki Nandan Plaintiff and that she received this amount with an understanding that the sale agreement dated 26.2.1985 entered into between her and Ram Dass Amir Chand was still subsisting. Under issue No. 4 it was concluded that the Plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance of agreement of sale dated 9.3.1966 and subsequent agreement dated 8.3.1969. Issue No. 7 was decided in favour of the Defendant and against the Plaintiff and it was held that there did exist fiduciary relationship between the Plaintiff and Gokli Bai Defendant and if it did nor clearly so exist then also it can be said definitely that all was not fair in this transaction and therefore, Devki Nandan was not entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance of the agreement Under issue No. 5 of the trial Court concluded that Plaintiff is shown to be in possession of the suit land at village Garha (except for certain Killa Numbers) and the issue is decided in favour of Plaintiff upto that extent but it cannot be held that he has entered into possession in part performance the alleged agreement of sale in his favour and to that extent the issue is decided against the Plaintiff. In view of these findings, the suit for specific performance of the agreement was dismissed whereas the Plaintiff''s suit was decreed for recovery of Rs. 21,900/- against Gokli Bai Defendant, the amount which was found to have been received by Gokli Bai from the Plaintiff. Dissatisfied with the same, the Plaintiff has filed R. F. A. 1437 of 1979 whereas the Defendant Gokli Bai has filed R. F. A. No. 1827 of 1979.

Finding on issues Nos. 1 and 2 were not contested on behalf of Defendant Gokli Bai. The main contest between the parties is to the findings of the trial Court under issues Nos. 3 and 6 discussed together.

It is no more deputed that Gokli Bai Defendant did not enter into an agreement of sale with Ram Dass, Amir Chand on 22.6.1965-Ex. Mark 1 and she obtained a sum of Rs. 12,000/- by way of earnest money. It is the case of the Plaintiff himself that he got this transaction effected between Gokli Bai Defendant and Ram Dass Amir Chand as is evidence from the document Ex. P.18/C. In the written statement the plea taken was that agreement dated 26 2.1965 was not acted upon by the parties nor any rights were transferred or assigned nor there was any variation or novation of this agreement, nor did Shri Ram Dass or Amir Chand aforesaid fulfilled their part of the contract and thus their rights were extinguished by lapse of time and by their acts and conduct. Whereas the stand taken during the trial and even in this Court is that the said agreement subsists and if at all it is Ram Dass and Amir Chand who could claim any specific performance and not the Plaintiff. The present case is to be decided on the totality of the circumstances and the probabilities and not on certain discrepancies here and there as found by the trial Court. The Plaintiff has produced documentary evidence in support of his case and unfortunately the Defendant Gokli Bai. denied the said documents in toto. except the agreement Mark 1 dated 26.2.1965. She even denied that she ever appointed Paras Ram as her attorney but later on she admitted that she did executed a power of attorney in favour of Paras Ram. Thus, the stand taken by Gokli Bai Defendant from time to time as it suits her is not trustworthy. From the documentary evidence produced by the Plaintiff it is fully established that there was an agreement of sale with Ram Dass, Amir Chand on 26.2.1965 Mark 1 which was done at the instance of Plaintiff Devki Nandan. A sum of Rs. 12,000/- was paid by them to Gokli Bai as earnest money and according to that agreement sale deed was to be executed in July, 1965 However, later on, Ram Dass Amir Chand by getting a sum of Rs. 12,000/-which they had paid by way of earnest money and a sum of Rs. 720/- as interest have made an endorsement dated 23.6.1965 in favour of Devki Nandan, Plaintiff on the agreement Mark 1. The said endorsement reads as under, as reproduced in the trial Court order dated 23.8.1972 because the original agreement which was sent to the Collector after impounding the same was not received back.

We have received the sum of Rs. 12,720/- half of which sum of Rs. 6360/- from Devki Nandan s/o Nota Ram--, the amount which we had paid under the agreement and the rights which we possessed under the agreement, have been transferred in favour of Devki Nandan s/o Nota Ram aforesaid due to our free will and consent. This writing has been reduced for record. Executant- -Ram Dass Amir Chand.

Dated 23.6.1965.

According to the trial Court, since the Plaintiff did not pay the stamp fee and the penalty before the Collector, this endorsement could not be read in the evidence in view of the earlier order dated 23.8.1972. It could be so if the Plaintiff ever refused to make the payment, According to the Plaintiff, he was always ready and willing to make the payment. Not only that he moved an application dated 6-10-1972 u/s 38(2) of the Indian Stamp Act for the return of documents dated 23.6.1965 for payment of stamp duty and penalty as ordered by the court order dated 23.8.1972. It was stated therein that the duty was chargeable by the Collector. The document has not so far been sent to the Collector for realization of the duty. Therefore, the document be returned to the Plaintiff for payment of the duty with a view to expedite the proceedings and to enable the Plaintiff to lead evidence after payment of penalty. This application was necessitated because the proceedings in the suit were being delayed on that account. The trial Court passed the following order on the said application on 6-10-1972:-

Present: Devki Nandan applicant.

Heard.-The case is covered by Section 38(1) and not 38(2) of the Stamp Act, 1899 and authenticated copy of the instrument in question together with the requisite certificate as envisaged by Section 35 of the Stamp Act be sent to the Collector for realisation of the amount of stamp duty and penalty from the applicant. Request of the applicant to return the original document is, therefore, declined.

Vide letter No. 650 dated 18.10 1972 the original agreement along with the said order dated 6-10-1972 for realising the stamp duty and penalty from the Plaintiff Devki Nandan i. e Rs. 195/- as stamp duty and Rs. 1950/- as penalty, total Rs. 2145/- were sent to the Collector, Ludhiana. According to the Plaintiff, he has also engaged a counsel Shri Charanjit Singh Bhardwaj, Advocate District Courts, Ludhiana for this purpose who has filed his affidavit in this Court dated 19.1.1986 wherein he has categorically stated that he along with his client Devki Nandan went to Head Registration Clerk, Collector''s Office, Ludhiana several times but every time he said that the document has not been traced. Enquiries were made till the year, 1978, but without any result. The fact remains that the original agreement was never returned by the Collector to the trial Court and since the document was not traceable, the Collector was unable to realize the amount from the Plaintiff. In these circumstances, the Plaintiff could not be blamed that he did not make the payment as held by the trial Court which observing that "all the same till the final payment in this suit the requisite stamp duty and penalty has not been paid by the Plaintiff before the Collector, the result is that in accordance with the order dated 23.8.1972 of Shri S. C. Gupta, Sub Judge, Ludhiana this endorsement can not be read into evidence." These observation are not warranted from the record. The Plaintiff could not be penalized for the fault of the Court Official. The payment could only be made if the original document was available. Since the same was lost in the office of the Collector, the amount could not be paid by the Plaintiff. Thus the above order of the trial Court in this behalf and ignoring the endorsement dated 23.6.1965 on the original agreement Mark 1 dated 26.2.1965 was wholly wrong and illegal. The Plaintiff could not be allowed to suffer on this account for the negligence of the Court officials or the officials of the Collector''s office. The original endorsement made on the said document has already been reproduced above. Moreover, Ram Dass who received the amount of Rs. 12,720/- has appeared in the witness box as P. W. 23. He had admitted that he had received a sum of Rs. 12,720/- from Devki Nandan. Moreover the trial Court itself has found further that Devki Nandan had paid this amount of Rs. 12,000/- to Gokli Bai, Defendant. Thus in view of the said endorsement Ram Dass Amir Chand did transfer their rights under the agreement in favour of the Plaintiff Devki Nandan. It will be pertinent to note here that according to the terms of the said agreement, the proposed vendees were entitled to get the sale deed executed in favour of any person of their choice. That was all the more a reason that there was nothing wrong or illegal in case they transferred their rights under the agreement in favour of Devki Nandan Plaintiff. Devki Nandan was only getting the same rights which Ram Dass Amir Chand had under the agreement Mark 1. The argument raised on behalf of the Defendants that from the very beginning Devki Nandan had an eye to purchase the suit land and Ram Dass and Amir Chand were only put by him, is of no consequence because if Gokli Bai could agree to sell the land in favour of Ram Dass Amir Chand then if the same price was being paid by Devki Nandan, no motive could be imputed to him in this behalf. It is not the case of the Defendant Gokli Bai that the price fixed in the said agreement with Ram Dass Amir Chand was in any manner fictitious or below the market price at that time. As a matter of fact much has been made by the trial Court on the basis because otherwise from the entire evidence on the record and particularly the finding of the trial Court under issue No. 5 that the Plaintiff was in possession of the suit land, it is amply proved that he got the possession in part performance of the agreement. The report roznamcha Ex. P.24 dated 11.3.1966 in this behalf is very pertinent, which report was further acknowledged by Paras Ram as attorney of Gokli Bai Defendant, vide document PW11/2 dated 20.3.1966. Paras Ram was appointed as attorney by Gokli Bai on 9.3.1966 on which date she also executed the agreement of sale in favour of Devki Nandan, Ex. P1., which according to the trial Court has not been proved satisfactorily by the Plaintiff.

As observed earlier, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, it could not be held that the Defendant Gokli Bai did not execute the agreement Ex. P1 in favour of Devki Nandan. It is unfortunate that the thumb impression put by her could not be compared by the finger and handwriting experts as it was found to be super-imposed but apart from that there is independent evidence to prove the same. The Plaintiff himself came in witness box as PW1. He also produced Hukmi Chand as an eye-witness to the said document, and Paras Ram PW11 in whose favour that very day power of attorney was executed by Gokli Bai which she denied in the first instance in her statement, but admitted later on. The Plaintiff also produced Daulat Ram PW 14 as one of the eye-witnesses and Ram Kishan PW8 Chiranji Lal Stamp vendor was produced as PW10 who came with the registers bearing thumb impressions of Defendant Gokli Bai purchasing the stamps for the said purpose. The said agreement was attested by Dhanu Ram who is none other than the son-in-law of Gokli Bai Defendant and her daughter Ram Ditti. Certain discrepancies were pointed out by the learned Counsel for the Defendant in their statements and their interest in the Plaintiff, but I do not find that the said discrepancies are of any consequence taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the probabilities of the case and the time gap. The Defendant did not produce her daughter in the witness box to deny her signatures on the agreement Ex. P1. Her husband-Bhanu Ram appeared in the witness box. He denied his signatures and also stated that his wife was illiterate. The signatures of Dhanu Ram were got compared by the Plaintiff through Shri K. C. Puri handwriting expert.

He appeared as PW21 and stated that the signatures of Dhanu Ram on the written statement and that on the agreement Ex, P1 tally and are of the same person. The trial Court has rejected that evidence on the ground that a material point in the comparison of the signatures on the disputed document and that on the written statement regarding the presence or absence of words ''noon'' in Dhanu Ram asssumes importance and as the science of handwriting cannot be said to be an exact one, in the presence of clear denial from Dhanu Ram that he did not sign either letter Ex. P7 or agreement Ex. P1, the matter remains a doubtful one. Moreover, the said document was executed in March, 1966 whereas the present suit was filed in March, 1971 and the P Ws appeared in the witness box somewhere in the year 1976 and therefore any discrepancy in their statements to the details was of no consequence. The approach of trial Court in this behalf is wholly wrong, illegal and misconceived. The very fact that after execution of the said greement Ex. P1 possession was handed over to the Plaintiff vide report roznamcha Ex. P24 dated 11.3.1966 wherein it has been clearly stated that Devki Nandan got the possession as purchaser, clearly shows that agreement Ex. P1 was executed by Gokli Bai in favour of Devki Nandan. This was further acknowledged by Paras Ram who was the attorney for Gokli Bai vide document dated 20.3.1986 Ex. PW11/2. Not only that, Paras Ram vide Ex. P7 extended the time on 8.3.1969 for the execution of the sale deed. Surprisingly enough, according to the terms of the original agreement Mark I Gokli Bai could not enter into agreement with any other person, but she entered into agreement on 14.3.1971 in favour of her own son-in-law Dhanu Ram and again on 27.3.1971 she executed another agreement in favour of Shamsher Singh etc. Thus, it appears that since by this time the market value of the land had increased she wanted to get out of the agreement on one reason or the other. She got the proprietary rights for the remaining land measuring 5 standard acres 3/4 units during the pendency of the suit on 11.11.1974 and therefore the plaint was allowed to be amended and amended plaint dated 9.6.1975 was filed where as the suit was originally filed on 26.3.1971. Thus the finding of the trial Court under issue No. 3 is reversed and it is held that the Defendant did enter into an agreement of sale Ex. P1 with the Plaintiff and also received a sum of Rs. 21,900/-.

According to the findings of the trial Court the Plaintiff only paid Rs. 21,900/- and not Rs. 26,756/- as claimed by him. Ac ording to the Defendant she only received a sum of Rs. 12,000/- as earnest money from Ram Dass and Amir Chand and no further amount wasereceived. When documentary evidence was produced to prove the payment by way of draft and cheque she had to admit that she received the said amount and it was on the basis of that evidence that the trial Court found that a sum of Rs. 21,900/-was received by the Defendant Gokli Bai. The only dispute remains with respect of Rs. 4856/- which according to the Plaintiff was paid in cash to the commission Agent on be half of Gokli Bai. Since the Defendant denied even the receipt of the amount which she received by way of draft of Rs. 2500/- vide draft Ex. PW7/3 and cheque of Rs. 6000/- Ex. P.59 and a further cheque for Rs. 1200/- Ex. P60, she could not be believed that the amount of Rs. 21,900/- paid by the Plaintiff was not received by her as the difference thus only receives of Rs. 200/- which the Plaintiff state to have paid in cash. From the evidence of the Plaintiff it is proved that some amount was paid by the Plaintiff in cash to her commission agents but the said payment could not be taken towards the sale price. Thus the total sum of Rs. 21,900/- is proved to have been paid by the Plaintiff and only a sum of Rs. 5056/- remains to be paid according to agreement Ex. P1 as well as according to the original agreement Mark 1. The Defendant denied the execution of the receipt Ex. P8 though now an arguments it was admitted that the same was executed by her if the said receipt Ex. P. 8 is read with the agreement Ex. P 1 it is amply proved that the amounts as mention there in stands paid, but as held earlier, the amount paid as commission to Ram Kishan etc. mention there in could not be considered towards sale price.

As regards the finding under issue No. 5 with regard to possession, the trial Court found that the possession is already with the Plaintiff but not in part performance of the agreement of sale. There is no warrant for this finding. Once it is found that the possession is that of the Plaintiff, then in view of the documentary evidence on the record particularly the roznamcha report Ex. P24 dated 11.3.1966, it could not be said that he did not enter into possession in part performance of the agreement. There is no cogent evidence on the record to prove that he got the possession as Mukhtiar of the Defendant Gokli Bai as contended by her. Plaintiff was never appointed Mukhtiar of Gokli Bai as such. He was only appointed Mukhtiar once and that too for taking possession of the land from the Rehabilitation Department being the proposed vendee. This is clearly stated in the report Roznamcha Ex. P24. Moreover, Paras Ram further acknowledged on 20.3.1966 vide Ex. PW11/2 as Mukhtiar of the Defendant that possession was that of the Plaintiff Devki Nandan as a proposed vendee. Thus there is nothing on the record to prove that the Plaintiff was in possession of the suit land as Mukhtiar on behalf of Gokli Bai. Rather the entry in the revenue records is "Billa lagan Bawaja Bai". Therefore the said finding of the trial Court is also liable to be set aside. As a matter of fact the finding under issue No. 5 will go with the finding on issue Nos. 3 and 6. Once it is proved that there was an agriment of sale beetween the parties, then the possession will refer to the said agreement.

The question of fiduciary relationship between the parties i. e. Plaintiff and Gokli Bai did not arise. Devki Nandan Plaintiff was never appointed mukhtiar or attorney by Gokli Bai at any time. He was only appointed once as Mukhtiar and that too for a limited purpose i.e. for taking possession of the land allotted to her by the Rehabilitation Department. After the said possession was taken vide Ex. P24, the said power of attorney came to an end. Apart from that the stand taken in the written statement on behalf of the Defendant was that the Plaintiff had taken forcible possession having taken advantage of the temporary injunction order in his favour. There was absolutely no evidence in support of this plea nor the trial Court had found the same in favour of the Defendant. Thus the vary stand taken by the Defendant in the written statement is falsified.

It is argued on behalf of the Defendant Gokli Bai that taking into consideration the conduct of the Plaintiff he was not entitled to the equitable relief of specific performance of the agreement particularly when the amount which he claimed to have paid in the plaint was not found by the trial Court to have been paid. In support of this contention he referred to Kommisetti Venkatasubbayya Vs. Karamsetti Venkateswarlu and Others, . and Saraswathi and Anr. v. Krishnier A. I. R. 1964 Mad 501. The proposition as such may not be disputed. In the present case, the very fact that the Plaintiff paid substantial amount to the vendor Gokli Bai and only a sum of Rs 5056/-remained to be paid and that he was in possession of the suit land in part performance of the agreement for the last twenty years is, a very strong factor in his favour for a decree of specific performance of the agreement. Otherwise it will again lead to further litigation and thus give rise to multiplicity of proceedings. Thus on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of specific performance and the view taken by the trial Court in this behalf was wrong and misconceived.

An argument was also raised on behalf of Gokli Bai Defendant that in view of the provisions of Section 13 of the Specific Relief Act, the Plaintiff was not entitled to enforce the agreement of sale if any, as-the land to be sold was not certain. However, there is no warrants for this proposition. No such case was ever set up by the Defendant in the written statement nor there was any issue to that effect.

Under the circumstances, the appeal of the Plaintiff succeeds, the judgment and decree of the trial Court is set aside and the Plaintiff''s suit is decreed for specific performance of the agreement on payment of the balance price of Rs. 5056/-. The Plaintiff will deposit the said amount within three months. Thereafter on payment of necessary charges for registration and stamp duty etc. the Defendant Gokli Bai will execute the sale deed in his favour failing which the court will get the sale deed executed. However, the parties will bear their own costs, throughout.

Resultantly, RFA No. 1437 of 1979 is allowed whereas RFA No. 1827 of 1979 is dismissed. No costs.