LAWS(MPH)-2013-11-232

KHILAWAN SINGH Vs. KEDRA

Decided On November 20, 2013
Khilawan Singh Appellant
V/S
Kedra Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the appellant/plaintiff under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.07.1998 passed in Civil Appeal No.8-A/1998 by the I Additional District Judge, Damoh, arising out of judgment and decree dated 12.12.1995 passed in Civil Suit No.21-A/1994 by the II Civil Judge, Class-II, Damoh and is admitted on the following substantial question of law :

(2.) The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of the land in suit on the ground that the appellant was ever willing and ready to get the sale-deed executed in terms of the agreement but even when the demand was made, the respondent/defendant refused to execute the sale-deed. It is the case of the appellant that respondent, who was owner in possession of the land in suit, was in need of money and approached the appellant and offered the land in suit for sale. Such an offer was accepted for a consideration of Rs.3,000/- and immediately an earnest amount of Rs.1,298/- was paid to the respondent/defendant. The agreement so written was duly signed and executed before the witnesses on a plain paper bearing a revenue stamp of 20 paise. Even when the notice was issued to the respondent, the same was not responded to and, therefore, the suit was required to be filed.

(3.) The respondent/defendant contested the claim made by the appellant on the specific plea that in fact no agreement for sale was executed by him in favour of the appellant. On the other hand, since the respondent/ defendant was in need of some money, he has taken loan from the appellant and for the collateral security of the loan, such an acknowledgment was got written. There was no intention to sale the property, therefore, there was no out and out sale agreement executed by the respondent/ defendant. It was contended that the land of more value is sought to be purchased through such a manipulated document stating that it was an agreement of sale whereas no such agreement was ever executed by the respondent/plaintiff. It is further contended in the written statement that the amount was paid in installment, the appellant was asked to return back the document but it was said by the appellant that since the loan amount is already paid, there was no need of returning of such document.