DASARA SATYAM Vs. BANAMALI SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant has filed the appeal against a reversing decision in a suit for specific performance of contract.

(2.) The disputed property including a house belongs to the defendant. He had received some advance from one Padmabati Pahdi under a registered deed of agreement dated 15.3.1977 to sell the property to said Padmabati Padhi. He had also received some money from one Trinath Sahoo under an agreement dated 23.6.1977. In order to repay the amounts received from Padmabati Padhi and Trinath Sahoo, defendant took a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the plaintiff on 9.9.1977 with the understanding that after repaying the dues of the other persons and getting khas possession of the house from Trinath Sahoo, two rooms shall be let out to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff continued as a tenant under the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- and it was stipulated that rent shall be adjusted out of the advance of Rs. 5,000/-. Subsequently, on 2.1.1979, the defendant contracted to sell the disputed property to plaintiff for Rs. 20,000/-. It was agreed that a sum of Rs. 3,850/- after adjustment of Rs. 1,150/- towards house rent, shall be considered as advance towards the sale price. Subsequently, the defendant took further sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff on different dates as per the receipts indicated in Schedule-B of the plaint. Defendants, however, did not complete the transaction even though plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and ultimately the plaintiff sent notice on 9.7.1980. However, defendant disowned the agreement by his reply dated 16.7.1980 and the plaintiff was forced to file the suit for specific performance of contract.

(3.) The defendant in his written statement denied the allegation regarding the alleged contract for sale of the disputed property to the plaintiff for Rs. 20,000/-. It was specifically pleaded by the defendant that he was a Telugu person and knew only to sign in Oriya. It was further stated that the husband of Padmabati Padhi approached the defendant to take the house on rent and accordingly paid an advance of Rs. 5,000/-, but subsequently it transpired that he had played fraud upon the defendant and managed to obtain a deed of agreement to sell the property to Padmabati Padhi. Subsequently at the instance of the brother-in-law of the present plaintiff, the dispute with Padmabati Padhi was settled by taking a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the present plaintiff. Defendant had never entered into an agreement in any manner whatsoever with the plaintiff to sell the house to him and had not given possession of the house in pursuance of the alleged agreement. The money received from the plaintiff was taken as loan with assurance to adjust the same towards the house rent and no amount had been received towards consideration of the alleged agreement for sale of the property. It was pleaded that the defendant had put his signature on a receipt written by the plaintiff without going through the contents. It was further stated that he had taken a sum of Rs. 7.000/- and not Rs. 10,000/- as alleged.