NARAYAN NAGORAO Vs. AMRIT HARIBHAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal from a decree for specific performance of a con-tract of sale of a house passed against him.

(2.) IT is not disputed that on 4-4-1949, the defendant executed in favour of the plaintiff a document styled as an Isar Chitti whereunder after reciting that he had received Rs. 125/- as earnest money he undertook to sell a house belonging to him to the plaintiff for Rs. 300/ -. the agreement also provided that in case the defendant did not execute a sale deed by 25-5-1949, he will be liable to pay back the earnest money to the Plaintiff and also to pay damages to the extent of Rs. 100/ -. According to the plaintiff, the defendant refused to execute a sale deed and that he therefore served a notice on the defendant before the suit to execute a sale deed. But his reply to the notice was that he had not received the whole of the earnest money, that it was not the intention of the parties that the document should operate as a contract of sale and that is why he refused to execute a sale deed. Further according to the plaintiff he had alleged in the notice that he was willing to perform his part of the contract. The defendant denied the contract and said that he is an illiterate person, that he was duped by the plaintiff that he received Rs. 47/- only by way of earnest money and the real agreement between the parties was that the plaintiff was to lend him Rs. 200/- by accepting a mortgage over the ho se in suit. Further according to him the plaintiff would be properly compensated by payment of the money as damages.

(3.) THE trial Court decreed the suit and the lower appellate Court upheld that decree.