DEBENDRANATH MOHANTY Vs. ANNAPURNA MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Puri, in Title Appeal No. 35/74 of 1982/1981 in which he allowed the appeal in part and set aside the decision of the trial Court relating to specific performance of the contract. Both the parties in the suit have filed. independent appeals against the said decision. While Second Appeal No. 194/ 83 has been filed by the plaintiff, Smt. Annapurna Mohanty, Second Appeal No. 173 / 83 has been filed by the defendant, Debendranath Mohanty.

(2.) Smt. Annapurna Mohanty filed the suit, O.S. No. 25/6 of 1981/79-I for specific performance of contract of sale alleging, inter alia, that on 4-4-1975 the defendant being in need of money received Rs. 4,000/ - from her and executed an agreement (Ext, 1) to sell the plaint schedule land in her favour for Rs. 5,000/- within a year on receipt of the balance amount of Rs. 1,000/ -. On execution of the agreement, the defendant put her in possession of the land and she has been in its possession since then. Despite her repeated requests to accept the balance consideration money of Rs.1, 000/- and execute the sale deed, the defendant avoided to do so. She, therefore, filed the suit with the prayer for a direction to the defendant to execute the sale deed transferring the suit land in her favour on acceptance of Rs. 1,000/ -, or in the alternative, to direct the defendant to refund Rs. 4,000/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum.

(3.) The defendant denied execution of the agreement (Ext. 1). His case was that on 4-4-1975 being in need of money, he took a loan of Rs. 800/ - from plaintiff's husband, who was a money-lender, and on his insistence, he put his signature on a blank stamp paper and left it with him. Since interest on the loan was accumulating, he executed a sale deed for an area of Ac.O. 34 of land in favour of the plaintiff on 27-10-1975 (Ext. 2) in full satisfaction of the loan together with interest. On 23-10-1978, the defendant sold Ac.O. 40 of land to one Nirupama Dei for Rs. 1500/-which the plaintiff's husband wanted to purchase, but apprehending that he may not pay good consideration for the property, the defendant did not agree to sell the property to him and sold it to Nirupama Dei. At this, the plaintiff's husband became annoyed and created a spurious deed of agreement using the blank stamp paper signed by him (defendant). The defendant denied that possession of the suit land had been delivered to the plaintiff and asserted that he is continuing in possession of it.