RETNAMMA Vs. MUSTAFA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed by the defendant she challenges the decree passed in favour of the respondent for specific performance of Ext A1 agreement for sale. The respondent instituted the suit on the allegation that on 24.11.2005 he entered into an agreement with the appellant for sale of the plaint schedule property for Rs.Five lakhs and on the date of the agreement he paid her Rs.One lakh in advance towards the sale consideration; the transaction had to be completed by executing the sale deed in four months. Though the respondent has been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the appellant refused to execute the sale deed. In her written statement the appellant denied agreement for sale and payment of Rs.One lakh in advance towards the sale consideration. She raised the contention that the respondent is a money lender and she borrowed from him Rs.Fifty thousand in November, 2005 undertaking to pay interest every month till the principal was paid. As a security for the repayment of the loan he obtained from her a signed blank stamp paper and signed blank white papers. He also obtained her husband's signatures in white blank papers. She used to pay interest every month for some period later, she could not. So he wrote up an agreement for sale on the signed blank paper and the signed white papers he had obtained from her and her husband, and that is the one relied on by him in the suit. She prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(2.) The trial court entered a finding that since the appellant, and her husband who was examined as PW4 to prove that he attested the agreement, admitted their signatures in the agreement for sale its execution has been proved. It accepted the evidence of PW2 and PW3 who gave evidence in support of the respondents. The judgment and the decree are challenged.

(3.) The following points are arose for consideration.