ASHOK SHARMA Vs. AKHILESH TIWARI AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 6th December 2013 passed by learned Third Additional Judge of the Court of First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur (CG) in Civil Suit No.1-A/2012 by which the appellant's/plaintiff's suit has been dismissed.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit against defendant/respondent seeking a decree of specific performance on the pleadings, inter alia, that the defendant/respondent entered into an agreement to sell the property in dispute on 28.7.2009 and executed an agreement on that day agreeing to sell the property in dispute for a consideration of Rs. 31,25,000/-. It was further pleaded that initially, at the time of execution of agreement, the plaintiff paid and defendant received cash of Rs. 15 lakhs in the presence of witnesses. Further pleadings of the plaintiff was that later on, defendant from time to time, received amount towards the sale consideration and in this manner, a further amount of Rs. 7 lakhs was also paid by the plaintiff to the defendant and another agreement was also executed on 20.1.2011 containing recital that defendant had received a total amount of Rs. 22 lakhs from the plaintiff towards execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiff. However, when upon demand of the plaintiff, the defendant did not execute the sale deed even though, the plaintiff had collected all necessary revenue documents, a registered notice was given to the defendant, followed by a paper publication and finally, the suit was filed seeking decree of specific performance.

(3.) The defence of defendant No.1 was that he did not enter into any agreement to sell his property to the plaintiff nor any agreement was executed by him. He did not receive any amount from the plaintiff towards part payment of sale consideration. It was the case of the defendant that the plaintiff is a money lender who has obtained the signature of the defendant as the defendant had obtained certain loan. According to defendant, it was merely a loan transaction and the defendant has already paid the entire amount of loan borrowed by him from the plaintiff but the plaintiff is not issuing receipts and now an attempt has been made by the plaintiff to grab the property of the defendant on certain forged and fabricated documents.