LAWS(J&K)-1988-8-14

RAMAPATI Vs. JAGJIT KOUR

Decided On August 12, 1988
RAMAPATI Appellant
V/S
Jagjit Kour Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SMT . Jagjit Kour, respondent herein, filed a suit against Smt. Ramapati appellant herein for specific performance of an agreement to sell entered into between them on May 13, 1975 regarding the sale of one room, one bathroom and vacant piece of land belonging to the appellant herein for a consideration of Rs. 9000/ -. The case of the respondent was that the above said agreement was registered before the Sub -Registrar, Jammu on that very day and in pursuance of that agreement appellant herein handed over the possession of the premises to her which were rented out on May 19, 1975 to the husband of the appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 15/ -.Appellant received Rs. 1400/ - from her prior to the execution of the document and further received Rs. 6000/ -more before the Sub -Registrar, Jammu. The. remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. There was an agreement between the parties that in case appellant would pay Rs. 7400/ - in full to her up to November, 1975 the agreement would stand cancelled and she would return the possession of the suit property to the appellant. Respondents further case was that appellant did not pay the amount of Rs. 7400/ - to her on or before Nov. 10, 1975 and she then approached the appellant to execute the sale deed in her favour on receipt of Rs. 1600/ - - but the appellant avoided it which forced her to serve a registered notice upon her and ultimately to file the suit.

(2.) SMT . Ramapati appellant herein in her written statement admitted the execution of agreement to sell but according to her it was only a bond executed to secure the loan of Rs. 6000/ - from the respondent as she was in need of money. She further averred in the written statement that the respondent agreed to lend Rs. 6000/ - to her on the condition that she would pay Rs. 6000/ -. as principal and Rs. 1400/ - as interest, total Rs. 7400/ - by or before Nov.10, 1975 and in case of her failure to pay the above said amount the agreement would be considered as an agreement to sell the above said property. She further denied about handing over possession of the property and subsequently leasing out the premises to her husband.

(3.) BOTH the sides led evidence in the case and the learned City Judge after hearing counsel for the parties decreed the suit of the plaintiff -respondent. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of that court defendant -appellant has come up in appeal before this Court.