JASWANTSINGH Vs. ISSAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil first appeal by the plaintiff Jaswantsingh against the Judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Ganganagar dated 23-2-1955 in a suit for specific performance of contract or in the alternative for damages.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff appellant is that on 9-3-1954, the defendant respondent agreed to sell his land Chak 7 KK in Tehsil Padampura measuring 20 bighas for Rs. 6,800/- and executed an agreement Ex. 1 after taking Rs. 500/- as earnest money. It was also provided in the agreement that if the defendant failed to sell the land, he shall pay Rs. 2,000- as damages: on the failure of the defendant to carry out the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff sued for specific performance of the agreement and in the alternative for the recovery of Rs. 2,000/- ss damages as also the earnest money. The defendant denied the case of the plaintiff. He pleaded that there was a talk of giving the disputed land on lease to the plaintiff tor Rs. 1,000/- per year and there was no agreement for the sale of the land. As the defendant was an old man, very simple and illiterate, the plaintiff got the thumb impression of the defendant on a document which he described as lease deed. He denied that he had executed any agreement to sell the disputed land to the plaintiff. He further denied that he was liable to pay any damages. The learned judge of the trial Court framed several issues. Issue No. 5 related to the execution of the agreement. The learned Judge held that the agreement Ex. 1 was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. UP further held that according to the agreement, the plaintiff was entitled to recover only damages from the defendant, and he assessed the amount of damages at Rs. 1,000/ -. The trial Court decreed the claim of the plaintiff for Rs. 1,500/- of which Rs. 500/- were the earnest money and Rs. 1,000/- the amount of damages.

(3.) THE plaintiff has come in appeal and has prayed that the suit for specific performance of contract of sale may be decreed or in the alternative without prejudice to that prayer, the amount of damages may be enhanced by Rs. 1,000/the main, argument addressed on behalf of the plaintiff is that the breach of contract to transfer the land by the defendant cannot be adequately relieved by compensation in money and that such contract should be ordered to be specifically enforced even though a sum has been mentioned in it as the amount to be paid in case of its breach. Learned counsel for the defendant argued that the trial Court has taken the correct view on the interpretation of Ex. 1 under which the plaintiff can claim only damages and cannot claim specific performance.