- (1.) The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance praying that the defendants be directed to execute a sale deed of the land in question regarding which an agreement was entered into on 1.9.2005. The plaintiff's case was that he and the defendant had entered into an agreement that the defendant would sell the property in question by 7.11.2005 at a rate of Rs.6,44,000/-. The further allegation in the plaint was that Rs.3,44,000/- was already paid and that the plaintiff was always ready till the date of filing of the suit to execute the sale. Still further the plaintiff's case was that on 7.11.2005, he had appeared before the Registrar and in the presence of a witness by the name of Gaje Singh put in appearance before him. The defendant filed his written statement and came up with a case that in fact the sale price which was agreed between the parties was Rs.9,26,688/-. His case was also to the effect that he had also appeared on 7.11.2005 before the Registrar and had gone with the intention to execute the sale deed. However, he also claimed, quite contrary to the case of the plaintiff, that in the morning of 7.11.2005 the plaintiffs had approached him and had prayed for further time to arrange the consideration money.
(2.) The Trial Court framed as many as four issues and decided that the agreement had been entered into but decreed the suit only to the extent that the defendant may return the advance money, which was taken by him, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The Appellate Court, however, on the appeal filed by the plaintiff, decreed the suit in toto and directed the defendant to execute the sale deed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants primarily raised two issues. The first being, that no points for determination were stated in the judgment worth the name and, therefore, the mandatory provision for stating the points for determination was not followed. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon 2016 (132) RD 361 : Ram Abhilakh & Anr. Vs. Siyaram & Ors. and upon 2018 (138) RD 630 : C. Venkata Swamy Vs. H.N. Shivanna (D) by L.Rs. & Anr. and stated that it was a duty cast on the First Appellate Court to state the points for determination before passing the judgment. Learned counsel stated that these points for determination had to be framed before the judgment was passed and simply by saying that some point for determination had to be decided vaguely would not suffice the requirements of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The other submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that there was no finding of fact as to whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract till the date of the hearing of the suit. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon AIR 1928 Privy Council 208 : Ardeshir H. Mama Vs. Flora Sassoon and AIR 1995 SC 945 : Jugraj Singh and Anr. Vs. Labh Singh and Ors.. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, in reply submitted that points for determination were stated in the judgment and, therefore, the requirements of Order XLI Rule 31 C.P.C. were complied with. He further submitted that after the Trial Court had decreed the suit and had found that the agreement was there and had also directed for the return of the money by the defendant, then the only issue which required to be determined was as to whether the complete suit had to be decided or whether the Trial Court's finding had to be looked into. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon 2006 (3) SCC 224 : G. Amalorpavam Vs. R.C. Diocese of Madurai; 2015 (3) AWC 2984 : Mohd. Shafi Vs. Mohd. Azim and 2016 (116) ALR 804 : Deepak and Ors. Vs. Kailash and Ors. ;