JADUMANI GIRI Vs. BHAMA BEWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS are in appeal against the affirming Judgment in a suit for specific performance of contract and for possession. Gokul Chandra Giri (since dead) and Bhubaneswar Giri, respondent No. 4, herein, were originally the plaintiffs. During pendency of the suit Gokul Chandra Gin having died, his legal representatives who were substituted in his place, are respondents 1 to 3 in the present appeal. For convenience Gokul Chandra Giri and Bhubaneswar Giri are referred to as plaintiffs in the present appeal.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS case, in short, is this. The suit land described in schedule 'A' of the plaintiff originally belonged to the plaintiffs which they inherited by way of succession, being sons of Sidheswar Giri, the recorded owner. In the year 1974, they being in need of money approached the defendants for a loan of Rs. 1,200/ -. To their such request the defendants agreed on condition of their giving some property as security, for the. loan. It was also agreed to between them that the defendants would return back the security free from all encumbrances if the plaintiffs refunded the loan within a stipulated period. Accordingly plaintiffs executed a sale deed in respect of the suit schedule. A land on 6.11.74 for a sum of Rs. 1,200/ - in favour of the defendants and put them in possession thereof. On the same day defendants also executed a plain paper agreement in their favour stating therein that they would reconvey the suit land and deliver possession if they refunded the aforesaid amount including registration expenses within a period of five years. In view of the stipulation contained in the said agreement, the plaintiffs arranged money for repayment and tendered the same on 14.5.79, but the defendants refused to accept on some protext or other. Plaintiffs though were/are always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, but it was defendants who refused to take back she amount given as loan and registration expenses when offered and reconvey the suit land as agreed to between them and therefore, the plaintiffs finding no other alternative filed the suit claiming the relief as aforesaid.

(3.) THE above being the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as seven issues and on appraisal of the evidence adduced by the parties, decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. On appeal, learned District Judge on reassessment of the evidence agreed with the findings and conclusion of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.