PRITHVIPAL ROY Vs. UDAY KRISHNA RATRE AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.8.2014 passed by the Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional District Judge, district Bilaspur in civil suit No. 57 A/2013 whereby the learned trial court has dismissed the suit for Specific Performance of Contract of the plaintiff.

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract on pleadings inter alia that the land in dispute was agreed to be sold to the appellant in the agreement dated 23rd April 2013 Ex.P-1 and in that agreement, the plaintiff paid and defendant received Rs. 5,50,000/-, out of the total consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/- as agreed to between the parties. Further pleading was that later on, in continuation of the earlier agreement, as the defendant could not complete his part of contract, second agreement was executed on 26.06.14 Ex.P-2, intended to extend the period of earlier agreement. The plaintiff, apart from oral request, repeatedly gave notices to the respondent to execute, sale deed by receiving balance consideration. But when defendant did not execute the sale deed, occasion arose for filing of the suit to seek decree of specific performance of contract. The defence set up by the respondent was that there was no agreement for sale of the property in dispute between the plaintiff and defendant and he came out with the case that the document is essentially related to transaction of loan whereunder the defendant had burrowed loan from Vijay Saraf and only to secure repayment of loan to Vijay Saraf, a sham document was executed. Similar plea was taken in respect of the second agreement also.

(3.) Learned trial court framed following six issues: <IMG border=1 align=center src="http://www.indialawlibrary.com\images\23112018-175.jpg">