NAGARMAL Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the defendant in suit who has suffered a decree for specific performance of an agreement executed in favour of the plaintiff on 29.12.2010. The contention of the plaintiff was that the consideration was stipulated as Rs. 7 lakhs and on the date of agreement, an amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was paid. The receipt of Rs. 2 lakhs was admitted by the defendant and the signature in the document was also admitted but he sought to contend that he signed the document without reading the recitals out of trust and believing the same to be merely an instrument of security for the amount borrowed.

(2.) At the trial, the plaintiff produced the witness Dharmender Kumar who admitted to his relationship with the plaintiff. Yet another person shown as witness to the document was Rakesh Kumar whose name had been written after scoring the name of Raj Kumar, but Rakesh Kumar was not examined. The court found the agreement to be genuine and granted the decree. The defendant's grievance was that there had been a panchayat in the village where it was decided that if the defendant paid Rs. 2 lakhs which he had borrowed for repayment with interest, the plaintiff ought not to press his relief for specific performance. The so-called panchayat was also reduced in writing and the panchayatnama was produced in court as evidence.

(3.) At the trial, the plaintiff stated that he was not a party to the panchayat and the decision of the panchayat was taken unilaterally. The defendant wanted to contend that the plaintiff had been informed about the constitution of panchayat but the plaintiff was not willing to participate. The appellate court rejected any consideration of the panchayatnama and finding the execution of the agreement to be genuine, granted the decree.