SUDARSHAN Vs. CHUHA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two cross-appeals, which arise out of a suit on the basis of a contract for the sale of land, measuring 230 bighas 12 biswas and 10 biswansis, situate in village Badhwan Kasurla, ilaqa Bahl, Tehsil Sadar, district Mandi. On 21-5-1949, (corresponding to 8th Jeth, 2006) Sudarshan, defendant, executed an agreement, Ex. P. A, whereby he undertook to sell the land mentioned above to the plaintiff, Mian Chuha Singh, and one Hem Prabh in equal shares for a total consideration of Rs. 22,000/-. In the body of the agreement, Sudarshan admitted receipt of half the sale consideration, namely, Rs. 11,000/-. The balance was to be paid, when the sale- deed was registered. In the event of any default on the part of the defendant, he was to make good to the plaintiff, not only the sum of Rs. 11,000/-already received, but a further sum of Rs. 11,000/- by way of damages. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant failed to perform his part of the contract and mortgaged the land in question with possession with a third party, thereby causing loss to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff sought a refund of the sum of Rs. 11,000/- paid by him to the defendant at the time of the contract. He gave up his claim to recover the further sum of Rs. 11,000/-by way of damages.

(2.) The defendant, while admitting the execution of the agreement, Ex. P. A, pointed out that on the same day, the plaintiff executed a similar agreement in, his (defendant's) favour, Ex. D. D, whereby in the event of any default either on his (plaintiff's) part or on the part of Hem Prabh, the amount of Rs. 11,000/-paid by him (the plaintiff) to Sudarshan (defendant) would stand forfeited. Sudarshan further contended that the actual sale consideration was only Rs. 17,000/-and that it had been wrongly shown as Rs. 22,000/-in the two documents, Exs. P. A and D. D. As regaxds the alleged payment of part of the consideration, Sudarshan's case was that the plaintiff paid him only a sum of Rs. 700/- or Rs. 800/- by way of earnest money, which stood forfeited because the plaintiff refused to perform his part of the contract. He, therefore, urged that the plaintiff should be non-suited.

(3.) The following three issues were framed by the learned District Judge: