HARIYA Vs. MAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Paramount duty of the court is to dig out the truth and do substantive justice between the parties. It is the duty of the court to unearth the evil design and lift the veil to arrive at a correct conclusion.

(2.) Defendant no.2-appellant Hariya is in the regular second appeal against the judgments passed by the courts below granting decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell allegedly executed by Tej Ram, respondent no.2(defendant no.1 in the suit) in favour of Mam Chand, plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein. The execution of the agreement to sell dtd. 8/10/1997 is proved. However, certain facts have come to the notice of this court which weigh the balance in favour of defendant-appellant and decline the prayer for specific performance of the agreement to sell. The facts which have come to the notice of this court and overlooked by the courts below are-

(3.) This court has considered the submissions. As regards argument of learned counsel that the payment of sale consideration has not been proved, it may be noted that Tej Ram, the owner of the property has not stepped into the witness box and denied that fact. In the registered sale deed receipt of entire sale consideration is admitted and specifically recorded. Tej Ram has never challenged the sale deed on the ground that he has not paid the amount of sale consideration. He has never made any complaint to the police or any other authority for complaining non-payment of the sale consideration.