RAMESH CHAND Vs. KISHAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the plaintiff/appellant against the dismissal of suit for specific performance. Ramesh Chand, the predecessor of the appellants instituted a suit on 17-8-1987 against the defendants/respondents with averment that the defendant has agreed to sell the disputed land to the plaintiff on 24-12-1985 for a consideration of Rs. 34,000/ -. Defendant received Rs. 3,000/-as a part of consideration and the balance amount of Rs. 31,000/- was payable at the time of execution of registration of sale deed upto 30th June, 1986. The agreement was reduced into writing. It is further averred that on 12-6-1986 the defendant received an additional sum of Rs. 7,000/- and extended the period for execution of the registered sale deed upto 30th June, 1987. He handed over possession to the plaintiff on 12-6-1986. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff has been ready and willing to pay the balance amount of Rs. 24,000/ -. Since the defendant did not execute the sale deed, the plaintiff instituted the suit giving rise to the present appeal.

(2.) DEFENDANT/respondent No. 1 submitted his written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. He stated that he needed the money and obtained a sum of Rs. 3,000/- on 24-12-1985 from the plaintiff as loan. A nominal agreement was prepared in security of the loan transaction. He denied that a sum of Rs. 7,000/- was received by him on 12-6-1986. The defendant further contended that the plaintiff has obtained the signature of the defendant at the time of the execution of the initial document itself at two more places which has been fraudulently used by the plaintiff to establish the enhancement of time. Defendant asserted his own possession and stated that the same was not delivered to the plaintiff. It was also stated in the written statement that the land was more than worth Rs. 50,000/- and the sale agreement could not have been executed for a sum of Rs. 34,000/- only.

(3.) LEARNED Trial Judge after recording the evidence held that the nature of transaction between the plaintiff and defendant was merely of loan. The defendant had received Rs. 3,000/- at the first instance and Rs. 7,000/- at the second instance towards loan only. Learned Trial Judge further held that it is not proved that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part under the alleged sale agreement. Accordingly, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit for specific performance. However, a decree for refund of Rs. 10,000/- with interest was awarded in favour of the plaintiff.