The validity of a sale agreement is upheld where the plaintiff proves readiness to perform, and defenses lacking evidence do not suffice to challenge concurrent findings.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the defendant is the owner of the property and he entered into an agreement of sale on 28.11.2014 for Rs.1,00,000/- and received earnest amount of Rs.75,000/- and the balance consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff demanded and requested the defendant to execute the sale deed by receiving the balance amount. But the defendant went on postponing the same. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. But, the defendant did not come forward to execute the sale deed. Hence, he had filed the suit.

3. The defendant appeared and filed the written statement contending that he has not received Rs.75,000/- as stated by the plaintiff and there was no necessity for the defendant to sell the suit property. In the year 2014, the market value of the suit property was Rs.50,000/- per gunta. The market value of suit property is more than Rs.6,00,000/-. It is contended that alleged agreement is concocted and created by the plaintiff by cheating the defendant. It is further contended that the wife of defendant has purchased the property in Sy.No.229 of Shankha Village and as there was shortage of funds, the defendant sought for financial help from the plaintiff. At that time, the plaintiff gave Rs.1,15,000/- and the defendant offered security of Sy.No.17/2 measuring 18 guntas and Sy.No.16/2 measuring 12 guntas towards the said loan transaction. It is also his contention, he has repaid the amount of Rs.1,15,000/- with interest of Rs.10,000/-. The plaintiff has tendered a receipt for having received the said amount in the presence of witnesses. It is contended that the plaintiff had promised that the registered collateral security would be cancelled in due course. But, he had postponed the same and plaintiff had created the alleged documents for his benefit by concealing the true facts. The plaintiff has executed an agreement in favour of defendant agreeing to sell his property bearing khatha No.230 for Rs.7,70,000/- and has received Rs.5,00,000/-. When the defendant learnt that the plaintiff is making plan to sell the said property in favour of others, he filed O.S.No.112/2016 and immediately after filing of the said suit, the plaintiff has come up with this suit by concocting and creating the documents.

4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties allowed the parties to lead evidence and the plaintiff was examined as P.W. and also examined one witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P5. The defendant was examined as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as Ex.D1.

5. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the agreement executed on 28.11.2014 has been proved and amount of Rs.75,000/- has been paid in terms of recitals of the document of sale agreement dated 28.11.2014. The Trial Court also comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and answered issue Nos.1 to 4 as ‘affirmative’ in coming to the conclusion that the defence which has been taken by the defendant has not been proved either by examining any of the witnesses, who were present at the time of loan transaction or by producing any docume