RADHEHARI PANDEY Vs. SUKHRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment dtd. 17/10/2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar in Civil Suit No.14A of 2011, whereby the Trial Court has refused to grant a decree for specific performance of the agreement.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Appellant/plaintiff filed a suit, being Civil Suit No.14A of 2011 before the Court below inter alia on the grounds that by an agreement to sell dtd. 7/6/2005 (Ex.P1) Respondent 1/defendant 1 Sukhram agreed to sell the suit property situated at Ward No.8, adjacent to Karmchari Bhawan, Village Simga, bearing Khasra No.987/4 admeasuring area 0.13 acres and for execution of the sale-deed defendant 1 Sukhram received total value of the suit property, i.e., Rs.1,43,000.00 on the date of execution of the agreement itself. Possession of the suit property was also handed over to the plaintiff on the date of agreement itself. By virtue of the said agreement, the vendor contended that he has already received the total value of the suit property. Henceforth the plaintiff can get the sale-deed executed in his favour as and when he requires. After the agreement, though the plaintiff requested defendant 1 Sukhram many times for execution of the sale-deed, defendant 1 Sukhram continuously tried to get rid off his requests. Ultimately, the plaintiff sent a registered legal notice (Ex.P5) on 30/12/2005 to defendant 1 Sukhram. He refused to accept the notice. Then the plaintiff filed a civil suit for specific performance of the agreement dtd. 7/6/2005. The suit was registered as Civil Suit No.14A of 2011. Defendant 1 Sukhram appeared before the Court below and submitted his written statement. It was pleaded by him that as the suit property is his ancestral property, therefore, he has no right to sell the said property. Earlier one agreement to sell was executed between him and Shail Tiwari, a relative of the plaintiff, but, when it came to know that the suit property is his ancestral property then that transaction was cancelled. It was also pleaded by him that the plaintiff had fraudulently obtained his signatures on a blank stamp paper. He has not received any consideration amount from the plaintiff with regard to the agreement to sell the said property.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed 7 issues and after appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, the Trial Court passed the impugned judgment and decree, whereby the Trial Court has refused to grant a decree for specific performance of the agreement (Ex.P1) on the ground that in the said agreement it is not clear that for which land the agreement was executed. However, the Trial Court granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff for refund of the earnest money along with interest. Hence, this appeal.