R G DEYAGIRI Vs. RAHAMATBI MOHAMMEDSAB KERUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THE plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was for specific performance of the contract of sale and in the alternative for the refund of the earnest money, having been decreed by the trial court granting refund of rs. 13,354. 15 paise. On appeal by the plaintiff, again seeking for relief of specific performance, the appellate court not only dismissed the appeal but also set aside the alternative relief granted by the trial court as well. Hence, the plaintiff is before this court.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff was that the lands measuring 18 acres and 18 guntas was owned toy the defendant out of which four acres and 26 1/2 guntas were agreed to be sold to the plaintiffs. The value was settled at rs. 13,987,50 paise and agreement of sale was executed on 30. 5. 1972 and subsequently a sum of Rs. 13,354. 15 was paid and the balance payable was only Rs. 533. 35. As there was no failure on the part of the defendant to perform their part of the contract, the plaintiff sought a decree for specific performance and alternately for refund of the money paid.

(3.) IN the written statement it was contended that the agreement of sale is not true; the defendants do not even know the plaintiffs, the defendant got possession of half of the land from out of the tenant under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act only in 1974. Later on an area of 5 acres was acquired by the government and thus the defendants were left in the suit property alone. It was clear that in 1972 the suit land was a separate piece of land. In 1974 defendants came in contract with the plaintiff for the first time when they began to make purchase from the plaintiffs' shop on credit. In view of the good relations between the parties, the defendants also used to take some small amounts from the plaintiff by way of hand loans. In 1975 once defendants 1 and. 2 asked the plaintiff for a loan of Rs. 1,000/ -. The plaintiff wanted some paper to be signed. Therefore the defendant signed blank papers given to them by the plaintiff. Thus the suit document is not a genuine document but the same is forgery. They also contended alternatively that the agreement of sale in question is void as the same is violative of the Urban areas (Prohibition of Alienation) Act.