JUDGMENT - SHARAD MANOHAR, J.:--- This appeal has got to be allowed on the narrow ground that the view taken by the learned Assistant Judge, who has clearly accepted all the contentions of the plaintiff but, all the same, has dismissed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance, is a hypertechnical view.

2. The facts are very simple. The plaintiff came before the Court contending that he himself and the defendant formed a joint family. Both of them had sold certain property to one Deoram Shivram Tidke. Out of the consideration to be received by both of them from Deoram Shivram Tidke, the defendant persuaded the plaintiff to take an amount less than what was receiveable by him as per his share in the property. The plaintiff took Rs. 7000/- less and correspondingly the defendant took Rs. 7000/- more in that transaction. In this manner, therefore, the plaintiff had given Rs. 7000/- to the defendant. In consideration of this amount the defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the suit property to him for the said amount of Rs. 7000/-. The plaintiff was even put in possession of the property. The defendant, however, would not help the plaintiff in getting the pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document