LAWS(ALL)-1997-7-194

LEELA Vs. MUKANDA

Decided On July 11, 1997
LEELA Appellant
V/S
MUKANDA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by defendant Leela is directed against the Judgment and decree passed by the two courts below decreeing the plaintiffs suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell against the defendant.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff Chhotey Lal filed Suit No. 62 of 1981 against the defendant for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 3.10.1979 by which the said defendant had agreed to sell Khasra plot No. 685 area 3 Bighas 1 Biswa 10 Biswansi situate in village Mansurpur, Pargana Khatauli, district Muzaffarnagar to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 19,000, the said agreement was registered. The plaintiff paid Rs. 1,000 to the defendant before the execution of the agreement and Rs. 7,000 at the time of the execution of the agreement. Subsequently, on 16.4.1980, he paid a further sum of Rs. 2,500 to the defendant. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 10,500 was paid to the defendant as part of the sale consideration. It was agreed between the parties that the last date for executing the sale deed would be 31st March. 1981. Despite the plaintiffs request to the defendant several times to execute the sale deed, the same was not executed, hence the plaintiff served notices on the defendant on different dates to appear before the Sub-Registrar and to execute the sale deed. Since, this was not complied with, hence the suit.

(3.) The defendant filed a written statement denying that there was any agreement of sale between the parties in respect of the land in question. The defence was that a sum of Rs. 10,500 was taken as a loan and for the satisfaction of the plaintiff he had executed a document in plaintiffs favour who taking advantage of the defendants illiteracy fraudulently got an agreement of sale executed. This fact came to the knowledge of the defendant in April, 1980. However, on the advice of certain persons, he asked the plaintiff to come to the office of the Sub-Registrar on 31.3.1981 with the sale consideration. He waited in the office of the Sub-Registrar on the said date but the plaintiff did not appear as he was not ready and willing to execute the sale deed. The defendant further pleaded that out of the amount of Rs. 10,500 received by him as loan he has already paid off a sum of Rs. 8,000 with interest and is ready to pay the balance amount. It was further pleaded that the land in question was the only source of livelihood and if the defendant is compelled to execute the sale deed he will become landless and suffer great hardship, therefore, no decree for specific performance should be passed. It was also pleaded that the suit was barred by Section 157A of the U.P.Z.A, and L.R. Act.