BULAKI RAM Vs. BHIKHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Santosh Srivastava, counsel for the appellant and Sri Y. S. Vohra who represents the respondent.

(2.) This second appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 12.10.2009, passed by the Addl. District Judge. Court No. 9, Bulandshahr affirming the judgment rendered by the trial court, i.e., Addl. Civil Judge, Court No. 2, Bulandshahr in Original Suit No. 26 of 2006, decided on 13.5.2008. The plaintiff respondent Bhikhari Lal filed a Suit No. 26 of 2006, Bhikhari Lal v. Bulaki Ram (since deceased) for specific performance of contract with a prayer seeking direction to defendant (appellant herein) to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. He has sought suitable direction for implementation of the terms and conditions spelt out in the agreement to sale registered on 12.12.2001. In the present case, the plaintiff has set out a case before the trial court that an agreement to sale was executed by the defendant on 12.12.2001 which was duly registered by the Sub-Registrar, Sikandarabad and necessary entries were made in the register. The defendant had agreed to sell the half portion of the agricultural land of Gata Nos. 2051, 2055, 2056 and 2060 covering an area of 2 bighas 1 6 biswas for a consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs. Out of total amount of sale consideration, Rs. 20,000 was paid as earnest money by the plaintiff before the Sub-Registrar. The plaintiff had agreed to pay the remaining amount at the time of the execution of the sale deed. One year's period, that is, upto 12.12.2002 was stipulated in the agreement dated 12.12.2001 for execution of the sale deed. When after the stipulated period, the defendant did not execute the sale deed, litigation was initiated against him. It was displayed before the trial court vide para 8 of the plaint that the plaintiff purchaser had always remained ready to discharge his burden by making total payment of remaining amount and was prepared to get the sale deed executed in his favour.

(3.) The appellant-respondent Bulaki Ram contested the suit. Detailed written statement was filed rebutting the submissions made in the plaint. According to the defendant no agreement to sell the above land was executed in favour of the plaintiff defendant. The appellant was not prepared to sell his land for the above said consideration of Rs. 2 lakhs. It was' pleaded that the son of the defendant was a heart patient and it was pleaded that for the purpose of treatment, he took loan of Rs. 25,000. He was ready to repay Rs. 25,000 at the interest of Rs. 2.5% and the deed was executed for the purpose of security of money parted by the plaintiff-respondent. According to defendant Bulaki Ram what was done on 12.12.2001 in the office of Sub-Registrar was registration of a deed for the security of money, i.e., Reen Guarantee Dastavez as described in the written statement and not agreement to sell the property. The defendant repaid Rs. 35,000 to the plaintiff and a receipt was executed by the plaintiff putting his signatures. The plaintiff did not return the same to the plaintiff despite payment of the aforesaid amount. The land became much valuable later on.