R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 24.05.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Kishangarh -Bas, Alwar, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff -appellant for specific performance of contract.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff appellant filed a suit for specific performance of contract and for injunction against the respondents before the learned District Judge, Alwar. The said suit was subsequently transferred to the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Kishangarh -Bas, Alwar. In the suit it was alleged that the land in dispute situated at Village Gadli Ki Dhani, Tehsil Mundawar, Alwar was agreed to be sold by the respondent No. 1, Amarsingh, to the appellant for a consideration of Rs. 2,45,000/ -. On the same day, an agreement to sell was executed by the respondent No. 1, and it was also agreed between the parties that the respondent No. 1 would get the land redeemed from the Bank as the same was mortgaged with the Bank. It was further stated that on being asked several times the respondent No. 2, who happen to be the son of the respondent No. 1, never agreed to execute the sale deed. In fact, on 22.07.2008, the respondent No. 1 transferred the land in dispute to the respondent No. 2. On 08.08.2008, the appellant gave a notice to the respondents, but nothing was done by them. Therefore, the appellant prayed in the suit that the respondents be directed not to transfer the land to any other person and the sale deed executed in favour of the respondent No. 2 be declared null and void. The respondents filed their written statement and denied the allegations made in the plaint. In their written statement they claimed that the respondent No. 1 neither executed the sale deed, nor accepted any consideration for the alleged agreement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed six issues including the issue of relief upon which both the parties led their oral and documentary evidence. However, vide order dated 24.05.2010, the trial court dismissed the suit. Hence, this appeal before this Court.
(3.) MR . Madhav Mitra, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper prospective. Moreover, the learned Judge has not given any cogent reasons for dismissing the suit.;