ANANT PCASAD ALIAS ANANT LAL Vs. JAGARNATH SHARAN SAHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendant is directed against a judgment of affirmance. The courts below have granted to the plaintiff -respondent a decree for specific performance of contract, in respect of the lands mentioned in Schedule 1 of the plaint. The defendant has, accordingly, been asked to receive a sum of Rs. 3,000/ - and to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff respondent in respect of the said land. The defendant has appealed to this Court against the said decree.

(2.) In the maze of facts, that are stated in the plaint, the written statement, and the judgment of the courts, below, only a few need mention. It is the admitted case of the parties that the defendant -appellant and the plaintiff -respondent agreed to sell 17 dhoors of land and accordingly a Mahadnama (Ext. 4) was duly executed on 29 9.1972 and registered. The Mahadnama mentioned a consideration of Rs. 6000/ -for the outright sale of the property described therein by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. On its execution, a sum of Rs 3,000/ - was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as part payment and the remaining 3,000/ - was to be paid on the execution of the sale deed.

(3.) The plaintiff, however, according to his case, noticed that Mahadnama (Ext. 4) contained a wrong description of the property, agreed to be sold by the defendant to him instead of the property for which the same was executed. According to the plaintiff, the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was to sell 17 dhoors of land as described in Schedule I of the plaint. The description in the Mahadnama (incorporated in Schedule 2 of the plaint) of the property to be vended by the defendant, was varied in connivance with the scribe by the defendant The plaintiff served a notice upon the defendant accordingly and asked him to execute the sale deed as per the agreement, the defendant answered the said notice stating that the agreement was to sell the property as described in the Mahadnama. Hence the plaintiff instituted the suit claiming, on the basis of the agreement, to sell the properties described in Schedule 1 of the plaint, and sought a decree for specific performance of contract.