BHASKARAN Vs. GEORGE JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant's suit for specific performance of a contract though decreed by the Munsiff was reversed by the Sub Judge.

(2.) Plaintiff sold the property to the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 2,300/- as per Ext. B2 dated 24-2-1973. It is the case of the plaintiff that the sale deed was executed on condition that the property should be resold to the plaintiff within a period of one year on payment of Rs. 3,250/- and that along with the execution of the sale deed a separate agreement was also entered into between the parties. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that when he went to the Sub Registry office for getting the sale deed executed in his favour the plaintiff demanded some more amount, that he was net agreeable to pay the fame, that the plaintiff asked him whether he was prepared to re-sell the property within one year, that he replied that he would consider it later, that as a condition precedent for executing the sale deed the plaintiff insisted that he should execute a document expressing his readiness to re-sell the property within a period of one year and that for the sake of getting the sale deed executed in big favour he had agreed to execute a separate agreement. Defendant asserted that the agreement was not executed with his free will and that the parties never intended to act upon the same.

(3.) Ext. A2 is the agreement. Execution of Ext. A2 is admitted by the defendant. But his case is that Ext. A2 was executed en account of the pressure exerted by the plaintiff and not with his consent. The burden is heavy upon the defendant to prove that the agreement was executed on account of the pressure tactics adopted by the plaintiff. The Munsiff held that Ext. A2 is b valid contract capable of specific performance and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to have the property sold back to him.