HANSRAJ Vs. GOVIND NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hansraj the plaintiff-appellant herein was successful in seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 27.2.1982 with respect to a plot of land bearing No. A-16, situated in Janta Colony, Jaipur City, Suit filed against Govind Narain-the defendant-respondent herein, was decreed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur vide judgment and i decree dated 10.3.1997. Hansraj, however, was unable to defend the judgment and decree recorded by the trial Judge as the same was set aside by the learned Single Judge of this Court in an appeal preferred by Govind Narain. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 2.8.1999 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. It is against this order of the learned Single i Judge that the present D.B. Civil Special Appeal No 71/1999 has been filed under Ordinance 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance.

(2.) Brief facts culminating into filing of the present appeal reveal that the plaintiff-appellant (hereinafter to be referred as the 'plaintiff) filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale Exhibit-1, said to have been 1 executed between him and defendant on 27.2.1982 with regard to a built up plot bearing No. A-16, situated in Janta Colony, Jaipur City. The burden of plaint was that the defendant, had agreed to sell the built-up lot to him for a sale consideration of Rs. 2 lacs, for which he had given him an advance payment of Rs. 25,000/- at the time of execution of sale agreement itself. The 2 defendant, as per terms of agreement was required to obtain no objection certification from the Income Tax Department within two months of its execution of also no dues certificate for repayment of loan of Rs. 15,000/- to the Collector, Jaipur and thereafter to furnish receipts in lieu thereof before execution of a sale deed in performance of sale deed. The defendant 2 wriggled out of the contract and thus did not perform his part of obligations and a notice dated 20.9.1982 was served upon him through an advocate which was not favourably responded to by the defendant, thus constraining him to file a suit for specific performance.

(3.) The cause of the plaintiff was hotly contested by the defendant, who 3 denied having executed any agreement. It was inter alia pleaded by him that the agreement in question was forged and prepared on blank papers. He was in debts as a result of loan lent from various money lenders. Plaintiff himself was a money lender/broker through whom he was lent money. He was however, not in a position to clear those debts forthwith at the demand of 3 such money lenders/brokers like the plaintiff, he was pressurised by them to settle his debts and the agreement of sale was not voluntarily executed by him. He was under the bona fide belief that the property in dispute shall be disposed of for an adequate consideration of Rs. 7 lacs so as to enable the appellants to clear of his debts and it is on that understanding only that he 4 had signed the agreement but same were obtained on the blank papers. He further pleaded that in the agreement of appointing Arbitrators, one of the important conditions was that the Arbitrators would have powers to examine account books and settle outstanding debts by selling suit plot but with the consent of the defendant as to the sale consideration thereof and further that no dispute in future would be raised by any of the creditors. The plaintiff was the key person in getting the arbitration agreement executed. He forced the defendant to sign on blank stamp papers so that he may not refuse later on from selling the suit plot. He further pleaded that no other agreement except arbitration agreement was entered into between him and others and he had never agreed to sell the suit land for Rs. 2 lacs. He also pleaded that in fact the market value of the suit plot was not below Rs. 7 lacs and he also made an offer for a sale consideration to the tune of Rs. 6.5 lacs to the Arbitrators but no heed was given to him nor they took any step to examine account books so as to settle dispute with various money lenders and the brokers. He had received an offer of Rs. 6 lacs to Rs. 6.5 lacs but he was even expecting higher price so as to enable him to meet the demands of creditors. From the contents and attending circumstances of document Exhibit-1, he further averred that the same was forged and concocted. This pleading was sought to be inferred from number of circumstances mentioned in the written statement.