SANTOSH PAAL Vs. RAMNARAYAN TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This common order shall govern disposal of the aforesaid two appeals, First Appeal No. 311/2015 filed by the plaintiff and First Appeal No. 276/2015 filed by the defendant Ramnarayan Tiwari. The plaintiff suit was partly decreed in the manner that, though, the claim for specific performance was not decreed, the advance money was directed to be returned to the plaintiff. Against the decree of return of advance money of Rs. 2,21,000/-, the defendant has filed the cross appeal.

(2.) Santosh Paal filed a suit seeking decree of specific performance of contract, based on agreement dated 18.02.2009, Ex.P-6, on the pleadings, inter-alia, that the defendant entered into an agreement of sale of the disputed property admesauring 13.20 acres of land for total consideration of Rs. 7,00,000/- with the plaintiff and executed an agreement Ex.P-6 on 18.02.2009. Further case of the plaintiff was that by way of advance, Rs. 2,21,000/- was also paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. According to the plaintiff, he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract by depositing balance amount of consideration within the stipulated period of six months, within which the sale deed was executed, despite repeated request, the defendant started avoiding to execute the sale deed and finally before expiry of six months, the plaintiff sent registered notice dated 25.07.2009 to the defendant stating that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract by paying the balance amount of consideration and the defendant should execute the sale deed. But in reply to the notice, the defendant denied such agreement and finally the plaintiff had no other option but to file suit seeking decree of specific performance of contract.

(3.) The defendant's stand in the written statement was that he never executed such agreement and the agreement was forged and fabricated.