KUMA DEI Vs. MOHAMMAD ABDUL LATIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The short question that falls for determination in this second appeal is whether on facts and in the circumstances of the case, courts below are right in holding that due execution of agreement Ext. 5 has been proved?

(2.) Defendant No. 1 in the suit filed the second appeal against concurrent decisions of the courts below decreeing the suit and directing her to execute the sale deed conveying the suit property to the plaintiff on receiving the amount stipulated in the agreement and granting certain other consequential reliefs.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff, shortly stated, was that two documents were executed on 15-11-75, a sale deed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1 and the agreement Ext. 5 by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to reconvey the self same property in his favour. The dispute arose when defendant No. 1 went back on the agreement and avoided to execute the sale deed as stipulated in it. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking a direction to defendant No. 1 to accept the amount mentioned in the agreement and to execute the sale deed transferring the suit property in his favour within a stipulated time, failing which the court should execute the same on her behalf on accepting the consideration money which was in deposit. It was alleged by the plaintiff that previously the suit property had been mortgaged by him with defendant No. I and since he was not able to repay the amount within the stipulated period the aforementioned arrangement was entered at the instance of defendant No. 1 in order to avoid certain complications in her money lending business. While he performed his part of the agreement by executing the sale deed Ext. A and was ready and willing to pay the consideration money as per the stipulation in the agreement Ext. 5, defendant No. 1 avoided executing the document on one plea or the other.