R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. This is a defendants' second appeal which arises out of a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2000 passed by the Court below.
(2.) IT appears that the plaintiff respondent No. 1 filed Original Suit No. 1042 of 1988 for specific performance of agreement of sale and, alternatively, for recovery of Rs. 2,000.00 alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff to the defendants at the time of execution/registration of the agreement of sale. It was pleaded that the agreement in question was executed in accordance with law but the defendants thereafter did not execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement although the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The suit was contested by the defendants denying the claim of the plaintiff respondent. It was stated that the agreement for sale was never executed, instead money was taken as loan. Signatures of the defendants were obtained on blank papers, which were utilised for preparing the agreement, as such the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract of sale was liable to be dismissed. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed relevant issues. Parties produced evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their cases. The trial Court, after going through the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the defendants did not execute the agreement of sale and the amount in question was paid to him as loan. Having recorded the said finding, the suit for specific performance of agreement for sale was dismissed by the trial Court but the same was decreed for recovery of Rs. 9,000.00 by the judgment and decree dated 1.11.1994. Challenging the validity of the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No. 40 of 1995. The appellate Court reversed the findings recorded by the trial Court on relevant issues and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement of sale by the judgment and decree dated 30.8.2000. Hence the present second appeal.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants vehemently urged that the execution of the agreement was not proved. The Court below did not consider the evidence on record in its true perspective. The findings recorded by the Court below are contrary to the evidence on record. The judgment and decree passed by the Court below are, therefore, liable to be set aside. It was also urged that the Court below did not apply its mind to the findings recorded by the trial Court and the reasoning given by the said Court.;