KHEMACHAND SAHU Vs. CHHINGELAL RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the defendant aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 29-4-2002 passed in CS No. 13-A/2000 by Add1. District Judge, Narsinghpur for specific performance of agreement to sale the suit house to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 3,05,000.

(2.) PLAINTIFF/respondent averred in the plaint that he entered into the agreement for sale of suit house for a sum of Rs. 3,05,000 on 7-6-1997, earnest money of Rs. 1,50,000 was paid, sale deed was to be executed by 30th June, 1997, the agreement was reduced in writing. The plaintiff made arrangement for payment of balance consideration and stamp, he was present in the Office of deputy Registrar, Registration, Narsinghpur on 30th June, 1997, however, defendant did not turn up to execute a sale deed, consequently, plaintiff obtained a certification from Deputy Registrar as to his presence in the office, consequently a notice was served by the plaintiff on defendant on 2-7-1997, reply was sent by the defendant on 10-7-1997 denying the specific performance, thereafter when plaintiff contacted the defendant, he was assured that defendant would execute the sale deed after some time. The plaintiff relied upon the defendant till January, 2000,sale deed was not executed, consequently, yet another registered notice was served through counsel on defendant on 15-2-2000, an incorrect reply was sent by the defendant on 23-2-2000, last notice was given on 3-3-2000, in spite of that sale deed had not been executed by defendant. Plaintiff had been ready and willing to purchase the property as per agreement, however, defendant did not execute the sale deed, consequently the suit for specific performance was filed on 8-5-2000.

(3.) THE defendant in his written statement contended that he did not enter into agreement to sell the property, plaintiff was not present before the Deputy registrar, Registration on 30th June, 1997. Other averments were also denied. In the special plea, it was contended that plaintiff was occupying the suit premises, but was not paying the rent. Defendant had filed a suit on the basis of bona fide personal requirement. The suit was pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, narsinghpur. In fact defendant required a loan, consequently had obtained a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 as a collateral security thereof, fraudulently the agreement was got executed, value of the house was Rs. 6 Lacs, no out and out agreement for sale was entered into nor it was intended to be acted upon. Defendant has repaid the amount of loan to plaintiff, however, he has not vacated the house which he was occupying as a tenant. His intention was to usurp the property.