Heard.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.12.1992 passed by learned Second Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Bastar in Civil Suit No.5-A/1989 by which the learned trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement of sale between the parties in respect of the house in dispute as stated in the plaint.

2. The original deceased respondent/plaintiff Manohar Lal Soni filed a suit seeking a decree of specific performance of contract on the pleadings that appellant/defendant Rajendra Kumar Jha (appellant herein) had entered into an agreement to sell his house standing on the land admeasuring 1034 sq.ft situated in sheet No.92 of khasra No. 124/1 at Jagdalpur on 14.3.1981. It was further pleaded that the parties had agreed for consideration of Rs.25,000/- and Rs.2,000/- was paid in advance. Further pleadings were that the plaintiff gave two cheques one of Rs. 10,000/- and the other of Rs.5,000/- to the defendant on 24.4.1981, which was also encashed. According to plaintiff, Rs.2000/- was given to the defendant on 7.9.1981 for purchase of stamp. When defendant did not proceed to execute the sale deed, initially a legal notice was sent on 3.6.1989 through the Advocate and thereafter the plaintiff himself gave a notice on 21.6.1989. Thereafter, suit was filed.

3. The appellant defendant, however, denied existence of any agreement between the parties and it was pleaded that the transaction was of sale. According to defendant, the father of the defendant had demanded loan to fulfill his needs and a cash loan was taken. According to defendant, various amounts were given only in the series of loan advanced by the plaintiff from time to time and there was no agreement to sell the property. The defendant further denied that any amount was given for the purpose of purchase of stamps. The defence of the defendant was that the plaintiff had obtained the defendant's signature on certain documents at the time when defendant was mentally upset due to critical illness of his father. According to defendant, the signatures were obtained on the assurance that the documents were required for some other purpose including security for re-payment of loan.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as seven issues. Later on, two additional issues, issue No. 6-A and 6-B were also framed. On the issue as to whether there was an agreement of loan transaction, learned trial Court recorded a finding in affirmative that there was an agreement between the parties for sale of the property in dispute and the plaintiff had paid various amounts to the defendant from time to time between the period from 14.3.1981 to 7.9.1981 towards purchase of the suit house. The defendant's case and issue framed thereon that there was a loan transaction was answered in negative. Learned trial Court also recorded that the defendant was obliged to respect the agreement and execute sale deed. On these findings, plaintiff's suit was decreed. The said decree has given rise to this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant- defendant contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to decree of specific performance because the plaintiff failed to prove that there was an agreement of sale between the parties. The defendant not only pleaded but led weighty evidence that the transaction was, in fact, a loan transaction and the plaintiff was made to sign certain documents under peculiar circumstances and on certain assurance other than it being a transaction relating to an agreement of sale of the property. Next submission of learned counsel for the appellant-defendant is that the plaintiff did not take any steps towards execution of the sale deed under so called agreement executed in the year 1981 until the suit was filed in the year 1989 and in the absence of there being any pleading or evidence of any steps having been taken by the plaintiff towards ex