BHOPAL SINGH Vs. SANJAI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance praying that the defendants be directed to execute a sale deed of the land in question regarding which an agreement was entered into on 1.9.2005. The plaintiff's case was that he and the defendant had entered into an agreement that the defendant would sell the property in question by 7.11.2005 at a rate of Rs.6,44,000/-. The further allegation in the plaint was that Rs.3,44,000/- was already paid and that the plaintiff was always ready till the date of filing of the suit to execute the sale. Still further the plaintiff's case was that on 7.11.2005, he had appeared before the Registrar and in the presence of a witness by the name of Gaje Singh put in appearance before him. The defendant filed his written statement and came up with a case that in fact the sale price which was agreed between the parties was Rs.9,26,688/-. His case was also to the effect that he had also appeared on 7.11.2005 before the Registrar and had gone with the intention to execute the sale deed. However, he also claimed, quite contrary to the case of the plaintiff, that in the morning of 7.11.2005 the plaintiffs had approached him and had prayed for further time to arrange the consideration money.

(2.) The Trial Court framed as many as four issues and decided that the agreement had been entered into but decreed the suit only to the extent that the defendant may return the advance money, which was taken by him, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Appellate Court, however, on the appeal filed by the plaintiff, decreed the suit in toto and directed the defendant to execute the sale deed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants primarily raised two issues. The first being, that no points for determination were stated in the judgment worth the name and, therefore, the mandatory provision for stating the points for determination was not followed. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon 2016 (132) RD 361 : Ram Abhilakh & Anr. Vs. Siyaram & Ors. and upon 2018 (138) RD 630 : C. Venkata Swamy Vs. H.N. Shivanna (D) by L.Rs. & Anr. and stated that it was a duty cast on the First Appellate Court to state the points for determination before passing the judgment. Learned counsel stated that these points for determination had to be framed before the judgment was passed and simply by saying that some point for determination had to be decided vaguely would not suffice the requirements of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure.