KISHAN RAJ Vs. DULARWANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff's suit for possession by way of specific performance has failed in the two courts by recording concurrent findings of fact. The trial court granted alternative relief of refund of money with interest. He has approached this court in second appeal.

(2.) In defence to the suit, the defendant's case was that the transaction between the parties was one of loan. Her husband had borrowed money from the plaintiff for making payment towards buying a commercial vehicle, a Tata 407 Truck bearing registration # HNV-9259. For extending the loan, the plaintiff wanted collateral security in immovable property against the loan. It happened that the husband had no immovable property in his name but the defendant did. That is how the papers were drawn, according to the defendant, without conscious knowledge or what they meant. She signed up for securing repayment of loan but not to sell her property to the plaintiff.

(3.) The trial court while holding due execution of the agreement to sell or insist on execution instead bifurcated the claim and believed the probability of the story of loan transaction and that is how the order of refund of money followed which is assailed in the present appeal insisting for a decree of possession by way of specific performance in toto. The suit was partially decreed.