RAM SAHAI Vs. RAM CHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 18-6-1975, whereby the defendant had agreed to sell his 1/6 share of the plot in question in favour of the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 12,000. 00. The plaintiffs contended that they had paid a sum of Rs. 8,000. 00 at the time of execution of the agreement and the balance Rs. 4,000. 00 was required to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed. It was alleged that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. On the other hand, the defendants were resilling from the agreement and failed to execute the sale deed inspite of repeated demands, hence the suit.

(2.) THE defendants contended that he had never executed any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs and alleged that the plaintiffs were money lenders and in that connection he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 300 or Rs. 400 after putting signatures and thumb impression on blank stamp papers. THE defendants contended that he had repaid the loan and that the plaintiffs did not return the blank papers inspite of the repayment of the loan. THE defendants further contended that the plaintiffs had prepared a forged agreement to sell, which was not binding upon the defendant and that the plaintiffs had no right to file the suit for specific performance. THE defendant further alleged that if the suit was decreed, the defendants would suffer great hardship as the land in question was the only piece of land owned by him and was the only source of his livelihood.

(3.) THE defendants being aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions of the Court below has now preferred the present Second Appeal. At the time of the admission of the appeal, several questions of law were framed. However, at the time of the hearing of the appeal the only point argued by the appellant on the question of law was that the suit could not be decreed on account of hardship being faced by the defendant and the Court below should have only passed an order for refund of the amount.