SUSHILA DEVI Vs. MERULAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance of a contract of sale against the defendants on 11 -12 -1978. It was alleged by him that vide Ikrarnama dated 3 -12 -1977 the defendant no. 1 had agreed to sell the suit plot together with the house standing thereon to him for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/ -. It was further alleged by him that he had paid Rs. 4,000/ - to the defendant no. 1 on the same day and that it had been agreed between them that he would pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,000/ - to the defendant no. 1 before the Sub -Registrar within a period of three months. According to him, thereafter, he repeatedly requested the defendant no. 1 to execute the sale deed and accept the balance amount of Rs. 1.000/ - from him but the defendant no. 1 evaded the issue and did not comply with the request. It was in the said circumstances that after giving a registered notice to the defendant no. 1 through his lawyer on 14 -6 -1978 that he was required to institute the suit for specific performance of the contract of sale on 11 -12 -1978.

(2.) THE defendants, in their written statement, took the plea that there had been no contract of sale between the parties as alleged by the plaintiff. According to them, as the defendant no. 1 had needed money, he had taken a loan of Rs. 3,000/ - from the plaintiff. While giving the loan to the defendant no. 1, the plaintiff had taken his signature on certain document but the defendant no. 1 did not know as to what were the contents thereof. The plaintiff had assured the defendant no. 1 that his signature on the document was being taken with a view to secure repayment of loan. It was alleged by the defendants that after taking the loan of Rs. 3,000/ - from the plaintiff the defendant no. 1 paid monthly interest at the rate of Rs. 150/ - to him for a period of about 10 -11 months. It was submitted by the defendants that the suit for specific performance instituted by the plaintiff against him was misconceived and was liable to be dismissed with costs.

(3.) NOW , on a reappreciation of the evidence produced in the case, it was found by the first appellate Court vide its judgment dated 28 -8 -1981 that the plaintiff failed to establish that the Ikrarnama dated 3 -12 -1977 (Ex.P/1A) had constituted any real transaction of contract of sale between the parties in respect of the suit property. It was in the said view of the matter that the said Court allowed the appeal of the defendants and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract of sale. Needless to say, the finding in question being a finding of fact, and having been properly reached, did not call for interference in this second appeal. In fact, it was for the said reason that at the time of admission of this appeal on 23 -11 -1981 no question of law with regard to the said aspect of the matter was framed by this Court.