RANJIT SINGH Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff -Respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 13.9.1974, Exhibit P.5, executed by the Defendant -Appellant to mortgage 80 Kanals of his land acknowledging that he owned Rs. 40,000/ - to the Plaintiff. The alternative prayer in the suit was for recovery of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 40,000/ -. The Defendant -Appellant contested the suit denying the execution of the agreement to mortgage taking the alternative plea that the Plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It was further alleged that the Plaintiff being a money -lender had not complied with the provisions of Regulation of Accounts Act and the suit as such was not maintainable. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the execution of the agreement to mortgage as also the amount of Rs. 40,000/ - owed to him by the Defendant stood proved but in the agreement specific Khasra Nos. of the land which were agreed to be mortgaged had not been mentioned and as such the suit for specific performance could not be decreed. The alternative relief claimed by the Plaintiff was, however, granted and a decree for recovery of Rs. 40,000/ - with the proportionate costs was passed by the learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Muktsar vide judgment and decree dated 21st February, 1977. This is how the Defendant has filed the present Regular First Appeal in this Court.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length. No fault can be found with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, as regards the execution of the agreement to mortgage the specific performance of which was claimed by the Respondent. At the same time, the trial Court rightly concluded that relief for specific performance could not be granted because Khasra Nos. of the land of the Appellant which were agreed to be mortgaged had not been mentioned in the agreement. All that is said in the agreement is that he shall mortgage 80 Kanals of his land. The Appellant executed a pronote and receipt dated 30th March, 1974 with respect to the loan of Rs. 20500/ - taken by him from the Respondent. He took further loan of Rs. 18,000/ - from the Respondent and executed pronote and receipt. The agreement to mortgage recorded the acknowledgement of the Appellant that he had received Rs. 40,000/ - as consideration for the same. The learned trial Court, was, therefore, right in its conclusion that the Respondent is entitled to recover this amount from the Appellant.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the Respondent is a money -lender and since he did not comply with the provisions of Regulation of Accounts Act, the suit could not be maintained. This contention has no force. Exhibit P. 26 is the copy of form D and Exhibit P. 27 is the copy of form B which no doubt, show that the Respondent is a money -lender but the present was not a case for the recovery of the amount of loan. It was a suit for specific performance of the agreement to mortgage and the alternative relief for refund of the amount of consideration being Rs. 40,000/ - recorded in the agreement was "claimed. The provisions of Regulation of Accounts Act therefore not attracted to the present case.