KRUSHNA CHANDRA BADAPANDA Vs. ISWAR KARAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Defendant is in appeal against a reversing judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Puri, in a suit for specific performance of a contract of lease. Admittedly, the disputed property belonged to one Kulamani Badapanda, the original Defendant whose legal representatives are the parties to the litigation now upon his death. It was alleged that on 3 -1 -1958 the Defendant agreed in writing to permanently lease out the disputed property on a premium of Rs. 468/ - and it was stipulated that rent would be fixed at the prevailing rate in respect of the surrounding lands. The Plaintiff paid Rs. 68/ - out of the premium that very day and it was stipulated that the balance consideration would be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on or before 3.3.1958 when the Defendant would execute and register the lease deed in favour of the Plaintiff. The Defendant passed on a receipt in token of his receiving Rs. 68/ - and put the Plaintiff in possession of the disputed property pursuant to the contract. As the Defendant did not receive the balance consideration money as and when offered and deferred the matter, a notice was issued calling upon the Defendant to perform his part of the contract. Thereupon the Defendant denied the contract. The Plaintiff, hereafter came to Court asking for specific performance.

(2.) THE defence was a total denial of the entire allegation in the plaint. The contract is denied in toto. The Defendant asserted that be never knew about any such arrangement nor did be receive any part of the premium. There was no occasion to put the Plaintiff in possession.

(3.) ON Plaintiff 's appeal, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge who ultimately disposed of the same came to hold, disagreeing with the learned trial Judge, that Ext. 3 was a valid document. He also found Re. 68/ - to have been paid under the arrangement. He, however, reiterated the trial Judge 's finding on the question of Section 27 -A of the Specific Relief Act. The bar under Section 19 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act was also utilised against the Plaintiff. The learned appellate Judge, therefore, allowed the appeal in part and called upon the Defendant to refund Re. 68/ - being the part consideration paid by the Plaintiff to him. One of the legal representatives of the original Defendant came up in second appeal to the Court against this reversing judgment, impleading the other legal representatives as proforma Respondents. The Plaintiff -Respondent No. 1 has preferred a cross objection.