HAR DAS Vs. MANI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant Har Das wherein he has challenged the order passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 2 Hanumangarh passed in suit No. 19/82 on 22.10.1982. The suit was filed by the defendant respondent in the trial Court alleging inter alia that the appellant defendant executed an agreement in his favour for above 7 bigha of land on 25.08.1978. The sale money was paid on that day itself and possession was handed over to the plaintiff respondent. In the agreement this was agreed that as soon as the land will be cleared from the department, the sale deed will be executed and in case of failure of the appellant defendant, he will pay compensation to the same as compensation. The appellant defendant continue to avoid the execution of sale. Ultimately, the plaintiff gave a notice and in response to the notice dt. 26.03.1979, a reply was given by the appellant defendant that he had not entered into any agreement, in fact he had taken loan from the plaintiff respondent and in consideration there to, the agreement was written. It was not really intention of the parties to enter into any agreement. Meanwhile, the defendant paid half of the amount i.e. Rs. 8,000/ - The plaintiff respondent toured out the paper saying that the same is the agreement. Alleging that the defendant appellant has turned down his request for execution of the sale deed, the present suit was filed. On the basis of pleadings 9 issues were settled. They are as under:

(2.) DECIDING issue No. 2, the trial Court held that the execution of the agreement and giving of notice is proved. This has also not been established that after receiving the clearance papers of land, information was communicated to the plaintiff by defendant is not established. The trial Court has come to the conclusion that it is established that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to get the agreement executed. In that background issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No. 4 which relates to the fact that whether there was any question of limitation, it has been held by the trial Court that after execution of the document, the issuance of notice on 03.03.1979 and its reply dt. 26.03.1979 is established. In reply, the appellant has refused to execute the sale deed and in this background after having receiving the refusal on. 26.03.1979, the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff and after the refusal suit was filed on 04.05.1979. Thus, the trial Court has held that the suit is within limitation.

(3.) AS regards the nature of the agreement except oral evidence, nothing was there to conclude that the same was not true. It has come on record that anything else was the requirement of the agreement, thus, issue No. 5 has been held against the appellant. Issue No. 7 regarding impediment in sale has not been found to be established because no document has been filed by the appellant and thus, the finding of issue No. 7 has also been recorded against the defendant appellant, issue No. 9 has also been held in favour of the plaintiff that he was always ready and willing to get the contract performed and it has clearly come in the para. 3 of the plaint. Except this statement, what is required has not been contended by the defendant appellant and, therefore, this issue has also been held against the, appellant defendant. Issue No. 9 has been held against the appellant holding that on the day they entered into an agreement and possession was given to the plaintiff defendant. In what view of the matter, the suit was decreed, hence appeal.