MANOHAR SINGH Vs. ROSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment of the learned lower appellate Court dated 22.03.1999. The appellant had filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 96,609/- along with interest at the rate of one percent per month on the allegation that the respondents had entered into an agreement dated 14.02.1986 with the appellant to sell the suit land measuring 34 kanals 4 marlas for a total consideration of Rs. 1,84,000/-. In pursuance to this agreement a sum of Rs. 42,000/- was paid to the respondents at the time of execution of the agreement and it was stipulated that the sale deed would be executed on or before 02.06.1986 and the balance sale consideration of Rs. 1,42,000/- was to be paid before the Sub- Registrar. The appellant further pleaded that the respondents had committed a fraud as the factum of the earlier two mortgage deeds qua the suit property was not disclosed to him. The respondents demanded other sum of Rs. 50,000/- to redeem the mortgage, which was paid on 04.06.1986 against the receipt thumb marked by them. The suit land was further not got redeemed and neither was any attempt made to get the sale deed executed since the respondents were not in a position to execute the same in view of the earlier mortgage deeds and in view of the fact that no Income Tax Clearance has been obtained. The appellant prayed that his suit for recovery of the amount be decreed. He did not press for the enforcement of the agreement.

(2.) The respondents in their written statement admitted that they have entered into an agreement on 14.02.1986 and admitted the terms of the agreement. It was further pleaded that the land was infact mortgaged with one Manohar son of Mehri for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and they had agreed to get the land redeemed and the appellant was informed that he could adjust the remaining amount against the amount of consideration in case the land was not redeemed. The respondents have also admitted that they had agreed for obtaining the Income Tax Clearance Certificate and the appellant was required to furnish his affidavit regarding his source of investment on or before 26.05.1986. Since he did not furnish the aforesaid affidavit, further steps for execution of the sale deed could not be taken.

(3.) It was denied that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to them on any subsequent date. In short, the respondents pleaded that the fault was with the appellant as he had not furnished the requisite affidavit so as to enable them to get the Income Tax Clearance Certificate in furtherance of the execution of the agreement to sell. On the pleading of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: