SHREE RAM Vs. RATANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendants appeal from the decree of the First Additional Civil Judge, Meerut for specific performance of an agreement to re-convey a plot of laud. The facts are these. The plaintiff-respondent Ratan Lal alleged in his plaint that he entered into an agreement with defendant appellant Shree Ram by which he sold the plot of land in dispute for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and the appellant agreed to reconvey it to the respondent for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- within a period of two years at the option of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, though the sale was executed on 31-03-1960 and the agreement to re-convey on 5th April, they formed parts of the same transaction. The plaintiff alleged that he exercised his option on or about the 6th February 1961 and asked the appellant to re-convey the laud to him but the latter did not turn up at the office of the Registrar. The plaintiff further alleged that the respondent was given a second opportunity to go to the office of the Registrar and fulfil his obligation to re-convey the land but he stayed away. The plaintiff sent the appellant a registered notice in reply to which the latter repudiated the agreement completely and wrote that it was not binding on him. Thereupon the plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance.

(2.) THE defendant resisted the suit. He admitted having executed the agreement to re-convey the land but he gave his own version of the circumstances in which he signed it. He alleged that the sale and the agreement to re-convey were not parts of the same transaction. According to him, the plaintiff sold the land outright to him by the sale deed of 31-3-1960 and there was no agreement for re-sale at that time; however subsequently the plaintiff approached him with a request to sign an agreement of re-conveyance so that he (the plaintiff) could assuage the feelings of his wife and son who were angry with him for having sold the land. According to the appellant, he signed the agreement only after he was assured by the plaintiff that it would remain a paper transaction and not be enforceable. The appellant also pleaded that the agreement of sale was without consideration and, therefore, void and not enforceable. Alternatively he contended that he had signed the agreement as the Karta of a Joint Hindu family and as there was no necessity to re-convey the property, the agreement was illegal for this reason too. Lastly, the appellant pleaded that the plaintiff never having offered him the amount of Rs. 15,000/- as stipulated under the agreement of re-sale was not entitled to specific performance. Both sides led evidence in support of their respective versions. The plaintiff gave evidence himself and produced the scribe who wrote out the agreement (Kishan Chand P. W. 2) and the broker who is alleged to have arranged the transaction between the parties (Radhey Shyam Nilam P.W. 3). He also produced one Dhani Ram who is alleged to have made an agreement with the plaintiff for the purchase of the land for about Rs. 45,000/-. The defendant also gave evidence and produced one Hansraj who claimed that he settled the sale transaction between the parties, and there was no agreement for re-conveyance at the time.

(3.) THE question whether the sale of 31st March and the agreement of 5th April are integral parts of a single transaction, connected and interdependent, or whether they are separate and independent of each other is one of fact, not of law. The Court has to choose between the two versions - the respondents version that he needed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- and the appellant agreed to lend him this sum on the security of the land in dispute but insisted that there should be no mortgage but a sale followed by an agreement to re-sell, and the appellants version that the plaintiff sold the land outright to him and subsequently begged him to execute a fictitious agreement of re-conveyance for the sake of maintaining peace within his own family. The learned Judge after an exhaustive review of the entire evidence rejected the appellants version as false. We have read the whole of the evidence ourselves and are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge. The appellants explanation why he executed the agreement of re-conveyance is most improbable and in fact incredible. He is shop keeper of 58 years of age and may fairly he described as a man of experience. That he should have agreed to execute, at the request of a comparative stranger, a document which was likely to create trouble for him in the future cannot be believed. On the other hand, the respondents version is straighforward. He alleged that he needed money and a loan front the appellant was arranged by a broker on the following terms : The respondent was to receive Rs. 10,000/- from the appellant on the security of the land in dispute, but the latter said that he had been advised by lawyers that there should be two agreements - one of sale and the other of re-conveyance - which should not be executed on the same day to avoid the danger of the entire transaction being treated as a mortgage. This version is corroborated by the broker (Radhey Shyam P.W. 3) who arranged the transaction and by the scribe (Kishan Chand P.W. 2) who wrote out the two agreements. They both deposed that the parties discussed the nature of the transaction in their presence and the agreement was that the appellant would pay a sum of Rupees 10,000/- to the respondent who would execute a sale deed which was to be followed after a few days by an agreement by the appellant to re-convey the property. The plaintiff explained that the price for re-conveyance was fixed at a sum which was Rs. 5000/- higher than the amount paid to him under the loan because the appellant had to pay interest. This explanation must be believed because it is natural in a loan transaction that the lender must receive some interest on the money lent by him.