Y. K. Sabharwal, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement dated Ist June, 1991 executed by respondent No. 1 in his favour in respect of agricultural lands. Respondent No. 2 was impleaded in the suit as a pro forma defendant. The execution of the agreement was admitted by respondent No. 1. The suit was, however, resisted on the plea that the said agreement was not intended to be a real agreement for sale as it was executed only as a security for the loan advanced by the appellant to respondent No. 1. On the pleadings of parties the trial Court framed the following issues. 1. Whether defendant No. 1 was in need of Rs. 20,000/- and in this concern, on the demand of money from the plaintiff he had asked to execute an agreement and sale-deed by way of security to the loan and the intention of both, the parties was not regarding the re-sale 2. Whether defendant No. 1 had received only Rs., 20,000/- in relation to the disputed agreement deed-dated 1-6-1991 3. Whether according to the agreement deed dated 1-6-1991 the plaintiff was always willing to execute the registered sale-deed If so its effect 4. Whether the plaintiff had given notices to defendant No. 1 on 9-3-92, 25-5-92, 1-6-92 and 22-1-1994 5. Whether the agreement under dispute was made with a minor. If so, its effect 6(a) Whether the plaintiff has filed this suit against defendant No. 1 frivolously (b) If so whether defendant No. 1 is entitled to get compensatory costs from the plaintiff under S. 34-A, CPC of amount of Rs. 20,000/- 7. Relief and Costs.
(3.) Defendant No. 1 did not produce any evidence before the trial Court. His prayer for grant of adjournment to adduce evidence was declined by the trial Court and the case was closed after recording the statement of the plaintiff and his witnesses. The trial Court on appreciation of evidence decreed the suit.;