SURENDRANATH TALUKDAR Vs. LOHIT CHANDRA TALUKDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the defendants and from the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant District Judge, Barpeta in Money Appeal No. 1 of 1970.

(2.) THE plaintiff's suit is for refund of an amount alleged to have been advanced on an agreement for sale of immovable property. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants agreed to sell 8 bighas of land, which the plaintiff agreed to purchase. The price was settled at the rate of Rs. 520/- per bigha. On 28th of Aghon, 1366 B. S. the defendants executed an agreement (Ext. 1) for the sale of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 1,401/- as baina. The plaintiff further alleges that after the said agreement he advanced Rs. 300/- on 4th of Magh and Rs. 270/- on the 15th of Magh following. In total he paid Rs. 1,971 to the defendants, but the defendants did not execute the sale deed: on the contrary they sold the land to a third party. On the plaintiff's insistence for the sale of the land in his favour, the defendants excused themselves and promised to refund the money paid to them by the plaintiff. But they did not refund the money and hence the plaintiff filed the instant suit.

(3.) THE learned Munsiff, after trial, decreed the suit for Rs. 1,401/- stipulated in Ext. 1 but dismissed the plaintiff's claim of Rs. 570/- which he alleged to have paid subsequent to the execution of Ext. 1. On appeal the judgment and decree of the Munsiff were upheld by the learned Assistant District Judge. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the payments of Rs. 300/- and Rs. 270/- alleged to have been made after the execution of Ext. 1. The defendants now have come on appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned lower appellate Court, as stated earlier.