BALBIR SINGH Vs. ARJUN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's Second Appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 21-7-1993 passed by Sri C.B. Jaiswal, the then District Judge, Jhansi dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 46 of 1992, filed by the appellant.

(2.) . Respondent Arjun Singh had filed Suit No. 193 of 1998 alleging that on 23-12-1985, the defendant had agreed to sell his Bumidhari plot No. 76 area 4.32 Acres situated in village Khiriya Nad, Pargana and Tehsil Moth district Jhansi for a sum of Rs. 32,740.00. Prior to that an agreement dated 23-11-1985 was executed and a sum of Rs. 10,750.00 was advanced but the sale-deedcould not be got executed within the prescribed time. Therefore, the second agreement dated 23-12-1985 was got executed and in addition to Rs. 10,750.00 already advanced earlier further sum of Rs. 14,000.00 was advanced to the defendant and the agreement was registered with the Sub Inspector. According to the terms of the agreement the sale deed was to be executed after payment of balance of Rs. 8,000.00 by the plaintiff by 15-5-1986. The plaintiff asked the defendant to execute the sale deed after receiving the balance sale consideration but the defendant had been postponing execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff, therefore, served a notice dated 19-3-1988 through his lawyer Sri Kedar Nath, Advocate which was received on the defendant on 20-5-1988 but the defendant do not execute the sale deed and made a false reply dated 5-6-1988 through his counsel. It was further alleged that the plaintiff was ever ready and willing and was still ready and willing to get the sale deed executed after payment of Rs. 8,000.00. With these allegations, a decree for specific performance of the contract was sought.

(3.) . The defendant-appellant contested the suit. In the written statement, he alleged that the agreement cannot be enforced under the law as the plaintiff is not entitled to purchase the land. It was further pleaded that the defendant was possessed on 12.37 Acres of land in Patti Khurhara and 7.02 Acres fo land in village Ujyan - and thus he was possessed of more than 12.5 acres of land prescribed under Section 154 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter called the Act) and in view of the provisions of Section 154 of the Act he was not entitled to purchase the land in excess of said limit. It was also pleaded that defendant's father had taken loan from the plaintiff and in acknowledgement of the loan a document was written but the plaintiff instead of getting the document of loan executed got the present agreement of sale executed. Part of the amount of the loan taken by the father of the defendant was repaid by 15-5-1988 and the remaining was to be paid later on. The plaintiff had agreed to return the papers after the loan amount was fully repaid.