MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. RAHUL DEV SHEKHAVAT
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Rahul Dev Shekhavat
Click here to view full judgement.
PRAFULLA C.PANT, J. -
(1.) THIS second appeal, preferred under section 100 of
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against the
judgment and decree dated 18.06.2001, passed by District
Judge, Nainital, in Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2000, whereby
said court has dismissed the appeal, and affirmed the
judgment and decree for specific performance of contract
passed by the trial court [Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)
Nainital ] in Suit No. 86 of 1998.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, and perused the lower court record.
Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed Suit No. 86 of 1998 with the pleading that defendant (present appellant) is Bhumidhar of plot/khasra no. 91m,
measuring 0.809 Hct. (approximately 29 acres) situated in
Village kalyanpur of Tehsil Kashipur. It is further
pleaded by the plaintiff that the defendant agreed to sell
the aforesaid land for Rs. 1,20,000/ out of which Rs.
1,00,000/ was paid in advance as part of consideration, and Rs. 20,000/ were required to be paid at the time of the
execution of the sale deed. It is further pleaded in the
plaint that a registered agreement dated 03.06.1996 was
executed between the parties, and the sale deed was to be
executed by 25.05.1998. It is also averred by the plaintiff
in the plaint that he was ready to get the sale deed
executed by making payment of Rs. 20,000/. It is further
pleaded that the plaintiff requested the defendant several
times to execute the sale deed but he (defendant) avoided
the execution. On this, the plaintiff got served the notice
on the defendant to appear on 25.05.1998 before the Sub
Registrar to execute the sale deed but he (defendant) did
not turn up. It is alleged that the plaintiff remained
present in the office of the SubRegistrar from 10:00am to
5:00 pm., to get executed the sale deed. With these pleadings plaintiff sought relief of specific performance
(3.) THE defendant contested the suit, and filed his written statement. He denied having executed any
agreement of sale. The defendant alleged that actually he
took loan of Rs. 60,000/ on interest @ 2% per month on
03.06.1996 from the plaintiff, and returned amount of Rs. 65,000/ to him. The defendant denied that plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.