SUSHILA DEVI Vs. KACHRABAI

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.) THE trial Court vide its judgment dated 5-7-1980 decreed the suit of the plaintiff and directed the defendant No. 1 to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property in his favour within a period of one month. It further directed the defendant No. 2, the son of defendant No. 1, to deliver possession of the suit shop to the plaintiff on the date of registration of the sale deed. However, on an appeal being filed by the defendants the first appellate Court vide its judgment dated 28-8-1987 allowed the same and setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. It is being aggrieved by it that the plaintiff has filed the present appeal in this Court.