MANISH BAJPAI Vs. ALKESH LAKDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/Defendant has preferred this first appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 13/2/2019 passed by IX Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No.173-A/2011, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein for specific performance of contract was allowed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as per the plaint averments, are that the defendant is owner and in possession of land admeasuring 980 sq.ft. of Khasra No.156/25 situated at Mouza Juna Bilaspur, P.H. No.22, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Ward No.32, Ramdas Nagar, Tagore Chowk, Tikrapara, on which a house is built on ground floor and first floor (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). The defendant agreed to sell the suit land to plaintiff for total sale consideration of Rs.11,00,000.00 and request was made by the plaintiff to reduce in writing the agreement, however, the defendant told the plaintiff that the suit land is not recorded in his name, mutation is to be done and after purchasing the suit land the defendant has not got transferred his name. Thereafter, on 22/12/2007, an agreement was executed and earnest money of Rs.2,00,000.00 was paid to defendant by the plaintiff in presence of witnesses and it was agreed to pay balance consideration at the time of execution of sale deed. After one month of agreement, defendant came to the plaintiff and requested him for Rs.3,00,000.00 on account of some emergency then the plaintiff on 29/1/2008 paid the amount of Rs.3,00,000.00 as demanded by the defendant, in respect of which an acknowledgment was given by the defendant in agreement executed on 22/12/2007. Similarly, the defendant on account of exigency obtained Rs.3,00,000.00 on 27/3/2008 from plaintiff, acknowledgment of which marked in agreement by the defendant. Thus, out of the total consideration amount, Rs.8,00,000.00 was received by the defendant till 27/3/2008. After passing considerable period, when no information was received from the defendant, the plaintiff went to the house of defendant then the defendant again explaining the reason of nonavailability of necessary documents assured him to execute sale deed after making necessary documents available. It was further pleaded that the defendant kept procrastinating by making one excuse or another and new fact was brought before him that the defendant had taken loan from UCO Bank due to which the suit land is mortgage with bank and the execution of sale deed could be possible only after repayment of loan and No Objection Certificate by the Bank. For this, the defendant again sought 3-4 months time and assurance was given to execute the sale deed by the month of January, 2011. It was further pleaded in the plaint that a proposal was put-up before the defendant that if the defendant did not have the fund to repay the bank loan, then the defendant out of the total consideration amount of the suit land, can obtain balance amount of Rs.3,00,000.00 from the plaintiff for repaying the bank loan so that sale deed of the suit land could be executed in favour of the plaintiff but the defendant did not reply to the plaintiffs proposal. It has been further pleaded in the plaint that various efforts were made for execution of the agreement and when the attempts turned futile, the civil suit for specific performance of contract was filed.

(3.) In written statement, the defendant denying the plaint averments stated that neither any agreement to sell suit land was executed by defendant with plaintiff nor any amount was obtained by him. It was averred that the plaintiff is proprietor of Gajanand Glass whom the work of glass fitting of his house was entrusted. Due to the cordial relation between them, on being asked to execute an agreement for doing the glass work, a stamp of Rs.50.00 was purchased by the defendant and given to the plaintiff, thereafter it was told by the plaintiff to put his signature in the blank space below the stamp and whatever matter needs to be typed, he would get it typed in his own way and show it to him and after completion of the work, the plaintiff would return the stamp paper after full payment of the job consideration by the defendant or it would be destroyed. After completing the glass work and payment, defendant requested the plaintiff to return the said signed stamp, then the plaintiff avoided it saying that the blank stamp was lost somewhere and he had not written anything on it. Thus, the plaintiff taking unfair advantage typed a false agreement of sale fraudulently signing on blank stamp. It was further averred that no such agreement was executed nor any earnest money was obtained by the defendant. The plaintiff used to give rough receipt of the articles/material which were purchased by the defendant from his shop for construction of his house. Thus, the suit is liable to be dismissed.