PYARE Vs. KRIPASHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dt. 17.12.1996 in Civil Suit No. 5 -A/90 by 1st Additional District Judge, Chhindwara, whereby a decree of Rs. 21,250/ - with interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a. has been awarded.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the present appeal are that the original plaintiff Ram Khilawan filed a suit against the present appellant for specific performance of sale of his land bearing Khasra No. 54, area 11.005 hectare situate at village Itawa, Tahsil Parasiya, District Chhindwara on the assertion that defendant No. 1 appellant had executed an agreement to sell the same to the plaintiff Ram Khilawan for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/ - on 19.10.1988. Subsequently also he had obtained the sum of Rs. 500/ -, 200/ - and 550/ - on 20.10.1988,20.12.1988 and 5.8.1989 respectively. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 21,250/ - were received by the appellant. The appellant did not execute the sale deed in pursuance of agreement dt. 19.10.1988. Therefore, a notice was served on the appellant on 9.12.1989, whereafter this suit was filed for specific performance and in the alternative for the refund of Rs. 21,250/ - with interest @ 2% p.a. The suit was resisted by the appellant/defendant No. 1. It was denied by him that there was any agreement between the parties for the sale of agricultural land of the appellant. It was averred by the appellant/defendant No. 1 that he obtained loan of Rs. 3,000/ - from plaintiff Ram Khilawan, thereafter he has obtained potatoes worth Rs. 810/ - and subsequently Rs. 2,500/ - for various purposes. Thus, according to the appellant he has obtained a total loan of Rs. 6,310/ - from the plaintiff.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for appellant urged that the document (Ex. P -1) alleged to be agreement cannot be relied upon and on that basis inference cannot be drawn that Rs. 20,000/ - were advanced to the appellant. It has further been urged that the finding of learned trial Court that the appellant obtained a loan of Rs. 21,250/ - is not justified, in view of the material and evidence on record. It was therefore urged that the grant of interest @ 12% p.a. in the circumstances of the case is excessive, in view of the fact that defendant No. 1/appellant is a poor agriculturist and there is no averment or evidence to justify grant of interest as above.