ASARAM KISANRAO SHINDE Vs. UTTRESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the original defendant challenging the concurrent finding of both the Courts below.

(2.) Respondent / original plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of a contract in respect of immovable property being agricultural land at village Patrud, Tq. Majalgaon. It was the case of the respondent / plaintiff that the defendant had agreed to sale suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.95,000.00. Accordingly, plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.11,000.00 and thereafter, a sum of Rs.80,000.00 to the defendant. A balance of Rs.4,000.00 was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. So also, the defendant was supposed to provide a certificate of dry land from the concerned authority. It is the case of the plaintiff that a document termed as agreement to sale was entered into writing on a stamp paper of Rs.50.00 on 15/2/2001. In the said agreement of sale, it was recorded that the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.11,000.00 and Rs.80,000.00 on two different dates i.e. on 13/11/2000 and 18/11/2000, respectively. It is the case of the plaintiff that thereafter, the defendant avoided to execute a sale deed, hence the plaintiff issued a legal notice dtd. 21/2/2005. However, said notice was returned back with a remark, "could not need the addressee ". Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and also for a relief of perpetual injunction. The defendant appeared in the matter and filed a written statement and denied the facts stated by the plaintiff. The defendant stated that the plaintiff had lended a sum of Rs.5,000.00 which was to be returned back along with 4 % interest and again a sum of Rs.5000.00was lended by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant admitted that plaintiff is a deaf person. The defendant further stated that a blank bond paper of Rs.50.00 was obtained by the plaintiff from the defendant. The defendant further stated that he had signed the said bond paper and it was as a security for the sum of Rs.10,000.00 lended by the plaintiff to defendant. It is the further case of defendant that the said sum was returned back by the defendant to the plaintiff along with 4 % interest.

(3.) The plaintiff led his evidence and examined three witnesses including himself. The plaintiff examined the employee of Priyadarshani Mahila Nagri Bank Ltd., Beed, Branch Dharur. The plaintiff also examined one Mr. Bajrang Bangar in order to prove the agreement of sale. The defendant in turn examined himself and his wife.