SITARAM LAL Vs. JAMESWAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the registered agreement to sell Ac. 1.99 dec. of agricultural lands executed by the defendant-appellant on 18/02/1975. The defendant appellant contested the suit alleging that an understanding was reached between him and the plaintiff that the plaintiff would advance a loan of Rs. 3,000/- and he would mortgage 99 decimals of land. According to him, it was agreed that the mortgage would be usufructuary in nature. The further case of the defendant-appellant is that he executed the document in good faith upon the impression that it was a deed of mortgage. The defendant has alleged that the said agreement was obtained by practising fraud and deception.

(2.) The trial Court granted decree for specific performance which has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court. The defendant-appellant has preferred the present second appeal against the said judgments and decrees.

(3.) Miss Panda, learned Advocate for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the evidence of the plaintiff himself and has urged that the said evidence has clearly established that the intention and the arrangement was to create a unsufructuary mortgage, but a different kind of document was obtained from the defendant by deception. Miss Panda has further argued that none of the courts below was able to appreciate the legal effect of the said admission and committed error in passing a decree for specific performance ignoring the express provisions of the Specific Relief Act.