MANAK CHAND Vs. PURAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant brought a suit against the respondents for specific performance of a contract of sale of an agricultural holding on the basis of an agreement dated 21-5-1948. The trial Judge passed a decree for specific performance, but in appeal that decree has been reversed and, in its stead, a decree for return of the price and interest thereon has been passed against the defendants. The plaintiff in this second appeal claims a decree for specific performance.

(2.) Shri Himayatullah contends that the first appellate court has erred in finding that the price was grossly inadequate and, secondly, inadequacy of price is no ground for refusing specific performance.

(3.) The price fixed in the agreement is Rs. 900/-and the same was paid in advance at the time of the execution of the agreement. The first appellate court has relied on Keshav, D. W. 4, who stated that a price of Rs. 5,000/- was offered for the same holding by Chauthmal, The learned counsel for the appellant argues that he cannot be relied on as his was hearsay evidence. In my opinion, leaving aside the oral evidence of Keshav and Asgaraii, there are several other facts which are remarkable. Admittedly, the area of the holding is 130 bighas, and its annual rent payable to the Government was Rs. 204/-. Moreover, according to Puran's statement its net income, after payment of rent, was Rs. 300/- per year. This was elicited in his cross examination and it was left unassailed. I do not see any reason, nor is any stated by the learned counsel, to disbelieve him. The plaintiff adduced no evidence to rebut it. Considering the area, the annual rent and the net annual profit, the price really shocks the conscience. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the first appellate court that the agreed price was grossly inadequate.