SHRIKRISHNA GANUJI SONONE Vs. VITTHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Khamgaon in Regular Civil Appeal No.68 of 1988 on 14.10.1997 thereby partly allowing the appeal and setting aside the decree of specific performance granted in favour of appellant in Regular Civil Suit No.86 of 1987, decided on 22.4.1988.

(2.) THIS appeal is being heard afresh on merits after the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent bearing Civil Appeal No.10537538 of 2011 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos.2859728598 of 2010) filed against the judgment of this Court in this appeal delivered on 17.12.2009. By this judgment, this Court had allowed the present appeal and decreed the suit as ordered by the trial Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court, however, for the reasons stated in the order dated 2nd December, 2011 passed in aforestated Civil Appeal, set aside the said judgment and remitted the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits.

(3.) THE respondent resisted the suit by filing his written statement. While he admitted his ownership of the suit field, he denied that the agreement dated on 13.1.1987 was an agreement to sell the suit field. He submitted that this agreement was basically in the nature of a money lending transaction and that it was executed to secure repayment of amount of Rs.2,000/borrowed by him from the appellant. The respondent submitted that he was assured by the appellant that the agreement executed on 13.1.1987 though ostensibly about sale of the suit field, would not be acted upon or enforced by the appellant. He further submitted that the appellant also told him that he would mention amount of Rs. 5,000/as an earnest money only nominally, just to secure repayment of the amount of Rs.2,000/lent by him to the respondent. He further submitted that it was agreed between them that in lieu of an amount of Rs.2,000/borrowed by him from the appellant, he would repay an amount of Rs.3,000/. He also submitted that the agreement of sale dated 13.1.1987 was thus a sham and nominal document. He further submitted that even the purchase price of the suit field mentioned in the agreement did not represent the true market value of the field, which was about Rs.34,00035,000/ at the time of transaction. He also took an exception to the enforcement of agreement to sell on a legal ground. Thus, he urged that the suit of the appellant deserves to be dismissed.