BRIJ MOHAN DIVEDI Vs. SHIKHAR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this second appeal at the instance of the petitioner-defendant-subsequent purchaser (hereafter the 'defendant-subsequent purchaser') is the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1994 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Sawai Madhopur in Civil Regular Appeal No. 5/1991 (64/1980) affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.5.1980 passed by Munsiff, Sawai Madhopur in Civil Suit No. (186/71) 24/1980 by which the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 8.6.1968 executed by Kalyanmal and Chhitar Mal the respondentsdefendants (hereafter 'defendant-vendor') in favour of Shikhar Chand, the respondent plaintiff-vendee (hereafter 'the plaintiff vendee') was decreed.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the plaintiff as the vendee under the agreement to sell dated 8.6.1968 on 8.9.1971 filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell allegedly executed by the defendant-vendor in respect of agricultural land in khasra no. 1183, 1370 and 1372 agreegating to 7 bighas 19 biswas for a consideration of Rs. 3000/-. The plaintiff's case was that he was a money lender and an amount of Rs. 4,000/- under pro-note dated 20.8.1968 and a further amount of Rs. 1730/- under pro-note dated 21.8.1968 were due and owing against the defendantvendor. It was stated that as against the aforesaid outstanding amount of Rs. 5730/-, the defendant had agreed to sell by a registered sale deed his 7 bighas 19 biswas of land under the agreement to sell dated 8.6.1968 and also share the standing crop in equal measure or pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 500/- in lieu thereof. It was stated by the plaintiff-vendee that the defendant-vendor however despite the agreement to sell dated 8.6.1968 refused to execute the requisite registered sale deed. Hence the suit for specific performance which be decreed.

(3.) The defendants-vendors Kalyan and Chhitar Mal filed their written statement of denial. It was stated that purported agreement to sell dated 8.6.1968 was deceptively obtained as Kalyan had only signed certain documents pertaining to a loan transaction with the plaintiff-vendee admittedly a money lender.