Muttaci Jeyapaul, J. - (1.) CM No. 10176 of 2013 Application stands dismissed as infructuous as the main appeal itself has been heard and disposed of today. RSA No. 3777 of 2013:
(2.) A suit for specific performance of agreement for sale laid by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court and the said decree was affirmed by the first appellate Court. Defendant, therefore, has preferred the present appeal. Plaintiff has contended that the defendant who is owner in possession of the suit property, entered into an agreement to sell the suit property at the rate of Rs. 10,00,000/ - per acre and having received a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/ - as earnest money, executed an agreement for sale. Contending that the defendant failed to adhere to the terms, and conditions of the agreement in spite of the fact that the plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the present suit was laid. In his written statement, defendant has contended that there was no contract between the parties. There was no agreement executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. In order to grab the property of the defendant, plaintiff had hatched a conspiracy and after having created an agreement for sale, laid the suit.
(3.) BOTH the Courts below found that the agreement for sale was in fact executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, agreeing to sell the suit property at the rate of Rs. 10,00,000/ - per acre after having received an earnest money of Rs. 4,00,000/ -. It was also held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract whereas the defendant was not willing to perform his part of the contract.;