SUBRATA CHOWDHURY Vs. AMARESH CHANDRA DEBNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 from the decree dtd. 11/5/2018 drawn in Title Suit No. 77 of 2015 pursuant to judgment dtd. 27/4/2018 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), West Tripura, Agartala directing the appellant (defendant in the trial court) to execute a sale deed in favour of the respondent (plaintiff in the trial court) in respect of the suit land within a period of two months from the date of judgment towards specific performance of the agreement dtd. 2/3/2015 (Exbt.1) executed between the parties to the lis.

(2.) The seminal facts which are relevant for disposal of this appeal are as under:

(3.) The appellant who was the defendant at the trial court contested the suit by filing a written statement. He admitted that he entered into a written agreement with the respondent to sell out the suit land and for this purpose he also received Rs.15,00,000.00 in advance on 2/3/2015. According to the appellant(defendant) the price of the land was actually settled at Rs.70,00,000.00 (rupees seventy lakhs) and, therefore, after payment of advance of the sum of Rs.15,00,000.00 (rupees fifteen lakhs), the respondent(plaintiff) was supposed to pay to him a sum of Rs.55,00,000.00 and that too for the price of the land only. According to the appellant, it was agreed between the parties that price of the building would be settled separately after proper valuation of the building. Accordingly, the appellant was urging the respondent for valuation of the building so as to enable him to execute the sale deed in favour of the respondent after accepting the price of the building as well as the remaining sum of Rs.55,00,000.00 as the price of the land. But the respondent(plaintiff) played a fraud by altering the figure of Rs.70,00,000.00 for Rs.66,00,000.00 in the agreement dtd. 2/3/2015 by interpolation. The appellant(defendant) therefore, pleaded at the trial Court that the balance amount of the price of the land minus the advance would be Rs.55,00,000.00and moreover, the agreement was rendered unenforceable due to the fraud played by the respondent.