TARAWATI Vs. RAM MURTI LAL GANGWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original Suit No. 79 of 2010, Rammurti Lal v. Smt. Tarawati, was filed for the relief of specific performance of contract. The plaint case in brief was that parties had executed registered agreement to sell dated 12.2.2009 for sale of property of defendant to plaintiff for consideration of Rs. 1 lakh; and at the time of execution of this contract defendant had received Rs. 50,000/- as advance consideration and promised to execute sale deed within one year. But in spite of repeated reminders and legal notices of plaintiff, she had not executed sale deed. Therefore, plaintiff had filed suit for specific performance of said contract.

(2.) Defendant (present appellant) had filed written-statement in original suit with pleading that she was in need of money, so on the persuasion of plaintiff for executing the documents of loan she had gone to Tehsil Pilibhit, where she was persuaded to place thumb impressions on several documents, after which she was given Rs. 5,000/- as loan. She was not read and explained the document, therefore, the registered agreement to sell in question was result of fraud played upon her by plaintiff. Defendant (present appellant) had also filed counter-claim alongwith her written-statement with prayer that the registered agreement to sell dated 12.2.2009 executed on her behalf in favour of plaintiff be cancelled. But during proceedings of the case defendant-appellant had not deposited requisite court-fees for relief sought by her as counter-claim, so her pleading was not accepted as counter-claim.

(3.) After affording opportunity of hearing to parties and accepting their evidences the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pilibhit had passed judgment dated 6.3.2014, by which suit of plaintiff for specific performance of contract was decreed with direction to defendant to receive Rs. 50,000/- as remaining consideration and execute sale deed of property agreed between the parties through registered deed as above. Aggrieved by this, defendant had preferred civil appeal no. 10/ 2014, which was heard and dismissed by the court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Pilibhit on 7.8.2015 with specific finding that registered agreement to sell dated 12.2.2009 was properly executed by the parties, and defendant-appellant had failed to prove that there was any fraud or deception in its execution, and also that plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Against the judgment of the two courts below, present second appeal has been preferred by defendant of the original suit.