BHAGWATI DEVI Vs. SURITRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This plaintiff's / appellant's (herein) second appeal was admitted for hearing by formulating the following substantial question of law, on 28- 2-2020: -

(2.) The appellant herein / plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract stating inter alia that defendant No.1 entered into agreement to sale with her on 30-4-2001 for alienating the suit property on a cash consideration of Rs. 35,000/- and obtained Rs. 30,000/- in presence of two witnesses by delivering peaceful possession of the suit land to her and promised to execute sale deed which he did not execute leading to serving of notice Ex.P-3 on 3-10-2003 which was replied by defendant No.1 on 16-10-2003 vide Ex.P-6 leading to filing of suit that though she is ready and willing to perform her part of contract, but defendant No.1 is not executing sale deed in her favour which she is entitled to get the sale deed executed through the intervention of the court, therefore, decree for specific performance of contract be granted in her favour.

(3.) Defendant No.1 filed his written statement stating that on 30-4-2001, he has executed sale deed vide Ex.D-1 in favour of the plaintiff for alienating the land bearing Khasra No.763/5, area 0.60 acre, and taking advantage of that fact, the plaintiff got the agreement to sale executed on which he signed by mistake and it was obtained by playing fraud and no sale consideration was paid to the extent of Rs. 30,000/- to him, as such, the plaintiff is not entitled for decree for specific performance of contract or for refund of earnest money.