PUSHAP LATA Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, I am disposing of two appeals i.e RSA No.3715 of 2010 and RSA No.3716 of 2010 both titled as Pushap Lata Vs. Amar Nath .These appeals have arisen out of two suits. One suit was filed by respondent Amar Nath against Parsini (since deceased and represented by appellant-Pushap Lata as legal representative) for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 16.08.1995 whereas the other suit was filed by Parsini (since deceased and represented by appellant-Pushap Lata as legal representative) against respondent Amar Nath seeking declaration that the aforesaid agreement is result of fraud and misrepresentation and is illegal, invalid, without consideration, null and void. Permanent injunction and mandatory injunction were also claimed by Parsini in her suit.

(2.) Case of respondent-Amar Nath is that Parsini vide agreement dated 16.08.1995 agreed to sell the suit land measuring 4 Bighas 161/2 Biswas to respondent Amar Nath for Rs. 1,25,000.00 and received Rs. 1,15,000.00 as earnest money and delivered possession of the suit land to the respondent. Sale deed was agreed to be executed on 15.12.1997 on payment of balance sale price of Rs. 10,000.00. Respondent always remained ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and even attended the office of Sub- Registrar on 15.12.1997 for getting the sale deed executed and registered in terms of the agreement, but Parsini did not turn up and committed breach of the agreement.

(3.) On the other hand, version of Parsini is that she had brought up respondent-Amar Nath as her son after death of his mother while he was aged about 2 months only and they formed Joint Hindu Family. It was also pleaded that impugned agreement is result of fraud and misrepresentation and her thumb impressions thereon were obtained on the pretext of getting her old age pension.