BRIJESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. WALIUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal which is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2000 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Meerut and arises put of a suit for specific performance of contract of sale. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Original Suit No. 23 of 1987 was filed by the plaintiff -appellant for specific performance of contract of sale dated 26.5.1986, alleged to have been executed by the defendant -respondent No. 1, to transfer the land in dispute in his favour for a sum of Rs. 58,000/ - out of which an amount of Rs. 56,000/ - was alleged to have been paid at the time of execution of the agreement. Balance of Rs. 2000/ - was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. It was pleaded that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract; but inspite of repeated demands, respondent No. 1 did not execute the sale deed. A notice is also alleged to have been served upon the defendant calling upon him to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance, but in vain as inspite of service of notice sale deed was not executed, hence the suit. The suit was contested by the defendant -respondent No. 1 who denied the execution of the agreement of sale and receipt of Rs. 56,000/ - from the plaintiff. He pleaded that he actually executed an agreement of sale of the land in dispute in favour of the defendants -respondents No. 2 and 3. Rest of the allegations made in the plaint were also denied. The defendants -respondents No. 2 and 3 also contested the suit claiming that they were bona fide purchasers of the land in dispute for value without notice. They claimed that the land in dispute was purchased by them for an amount of Rs. 75,000/ -. Other pleas taken in the plaint were also denied by them. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed necessary issues. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases. The trial court, after going through the evidence on record, recorded findings on the relevant issues against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants -respondents and dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 12.11.1990. The plaintiff -appellant, challenging the said decree, filed Civil Appeal No. 1178 of 1990 before the court below. The court below has also affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal by its judgment and decree dated 30.8.2000. Hence, the present second appeal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below were illegal, they were passed by misreading and misconstruing the evidence on the record. They were, therefore, liable to be set aside.

(3.) THE Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact to the effect that the sale consideration, as claimed by the plaintiff -appellant, was not paid to the defendant -respondent No. 1. While dealing with the issues Nos. 1 and 2 it was held by the trial Court that the execution of agreement dated 26.6.1986 and payment of Rs. 56,000/ -, as claimed by the plaintiff -appellant, were not proved. The said findings have been affirmed by the court below. The findings recorded by the courts below are based on the relevant evidence on the record and are supported by cogent reasons. The findings recorded by the courts below cannot be said to be perverse. On other issues also the courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact. It has also been rightly held that since there existed no legal agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, there was no hurdle for defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to purchase the land in dispute. The findings recorded by the courts below are not vitiated by any error of law. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11, C.P.C.