Sham Lal vs Daulat Ram

Alok Singh, J.—For the reasons shown in the application, C.M. is allowed. Order dated 17.2.2010 is recalled and appeal is restored to its original number.

Present second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 3.12.1980 passed by Sub Judge, Ist Class, Jalandhar as well as order dated 19.10.1981 passed by Addl. District Judge, Jalandhar whereby suit filed by the Plaintiff (Respondent herein) for specific performance of the Contract was decreed.

The brief facts of the present case are that Plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of agreement dated 22.5.1979; Defendant (Appellant herein) has agreed vide agreement dated to sell house in question for consideration of Rs. 14,000/-and Defendant (Appellant herein) has received Rs. 6,500/-as earnest money and balance of the consideration was agreed to be paid before the Sub Registrar at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed which was agreed to be executed on or before 12.11.1979.

The Defendant has contested the suit by way of filing written statement and has contended that infact Defendant has borrowed Rs. 9,000/-from the Plaintiff-Respondent and instead of getting pronote executed Plaintiff-Respondent got executed agreement in question from the Defendant.

Both the Courts below have decreed the suit by observing that Plaintiff could prove agreement to sell in question successfully and Defendant failed to discharge his burden that agreement in question was executed in lieu of pronote for the money borrowed by the Defendant.

In the present case from the pleadings and evidence available on the record, it is revealed that both the parties admitted existence of the agreement dated 22.5.1979. According to Plaintiff, agreement dated 22.5.1979 is the agreement to sell executed by the Defendant willingly and freely with object to sell his house in favour of the Plaintiff for total sale consideration of Rs. 14,000/-having received Rs. 6,500/-as earnest money. According to the Defendant this very agreement was executed in lieu of pronote for borrowed amount Rs. 9,000/-from the Plaintiff by the Defendant.

From the material available on the record as well as from the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below it seems that Defendant could not prove his case and Plaintiff has successfully proved his case. This is not a case where burden to prove was said to be wrongly placed on the parties. In the opinion of this Court present case is concluded by findings of fact and no substantial question of law arises for adjudication by this Court u/s 100 CPC.

Appeal is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed.