B.K.RATHI, J. - (1.) THE appellant filed suit for specific performance of contract of sale against the respondent. It was pleaded that the respondent on 13 -6 -1984 agreed to sell the land in dispute in favour of the appellant for Rs. 20,000/ -, out of which Rs. 3,000/ - were paid in advance and Rs. 15,000/ - were paid at the time of the registration of the agreement and Rs. 2,000/ - was remained as balance. The sale -deed was to be executed within two years. The respondent alleged that there is some dispute regarding the property with Ibney Hasan and, therefore, the sale - deed could not be executed. Later on, the respondent demanded more price and another agreement to sell was entered between the parties regarding the same property which was registered on 13 -6 - 1986. According to which, the consideration agreed was Rs. 25,000/ -, Rs. 18,000/ - were mentioned in the agreement to have been paid in advance and Rs. 2,000/ - were paid at the time of the registration of the agreement. Rs. 5,000/ - was to be paid at the time of the sale -deed.
(2.) NECESSARY allegations were made regarding service of notice that the appellant was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the respondent has not executed the sale -deed, hence the suit was filed. The respondent contested the suit and alleged that he took loan of Rs. 9,000/ - by mortgaging his land, that in place of mortgage an agreement to sell was got executed; that the respondent never agreed to sell his land for executed any agreement for sale; that the loan taken by the appellant has been repaid except only Rs. 15,000/ - are due on him which he could not pay; that, therefore, a fresh agreement for Rs. 2,000/ - was got executed which included Rs. 1,5000/ - as balance amount and Rs. 500/ - towards interest; that Rs. 2,000/ - were shown before the Sub -Registrar were taken back by the appellant; that the appellant is carrying on the business of money lending and is in the habit of getting the agreement to sale executed in his favour in consideration of the loan; that there was no dispute regarding the land with Ibney Hasan.
(3.) THE trial Court framed necessary issues and recorded the finding on all the issues in favour of the appellant and decreed the suit. Against that decree, the respondent preferred Civil Appeal No. 94 of 1995 which has been allowed by the impugned judgment, dated 6 -11 -1971. Therefore, the present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff. At the time of admission of the appeal, no substantial question of law was framed. Only it is mentioned that some mixed questions of law and facts are involved and, therefore, the appeal is admitted.;