VINEY MITTAL,J. - (1.) The plaintiff has lost before the learned first appellate Court. He filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement dated November 16,1996 claimed to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. He also claimed that he had paid the earnest money of Rs.3,00,000/- and the sale deed was to be executed on or before May 16,1997.
(2.) The plaintiff claimed that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement but the defendant did not choose to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the suit was filed.
(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants. It was claimed that the plaintiff was engaged in the business of money lending and the defendant was an agriculturist. It was, thus, claimed that no agreement, as claimed by the plaintiff, had ever been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant also denied the receipt of any earnest money. Some transactions were detailed with regard to payment of loan by the plaintiff to the defendant and return of the same by the defendant to the plaintiff.;