RAVI KUMAR Vs. SAJEEDA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

(2.) This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of both the Courts passed in O.S.No.96/2006 on 22/12/2009 wherein the Trial Court granted the relief of specific performance and directed the defendant to execute the registered sale deeds in favour of the plaintiffs by receiving balance consideration of Rs.1,35,000.00 within three months and also made it clear that if the defendant fails to execute the registered sale deed as directed, after the expiry of three months, the plaintiffs are at liberty to apply for appointment of Court Commissioner for the purpose of execution of the sale deeds in their favour and the said judgment and decree was challenged before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.65/2010 and the First Appellate Court having considered the material on record as well as grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the points and also taken note of the applications filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC by the respondents/plaintiffs that is I.A.Nos.1 and 2 and having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered point No1 as affirmative and point Nos.2 to 4 as negative no need to receive the additional documents and the same is not requires for consideration for germane issues involved in the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the First Appellate Court is not justified in holding that plaintiffs are entitled to discretionary relief of decree of specific performance without appreciating the additional documents produced before it and the counsel contend that both the Courts have committed an error in decreeing the suit for specific performance of plaintiffs which his opposed to Sec. 20(2)(b) of the Specific Relief Act by granting discretionary relief of specific performance of agreements to sale dtd. 15/7/2006 and the counsel submits that the evidence of PW5 is not in coronary with the evidence of PW1 to 4. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the total area of the property is agreed as 5 acres 20 guntas in terms of Ex.P1 and also in terms of Ex.P5, 3 acres 21 guntas, in total 9 acres 2 guntas and the sale agreement is also in favour of son as well as mother. The counsel would vehemently contend that there is an endorsement with regard to the enhancement of sale consideration in one of the agreements. The counsel would vehemently contend that larger extent of property was agreed to be sold as per the plaintiffs for meager sale consideration and same has not been considered by both the Courts and hence, both the Courts have committed an error and same requires interference and thus, admit the appeal and frame the substantive question of law.