Honble MADAN, J.—This civil first appeal has been preferred under Section 96, CPC, by appellant (defendant) against the judgment and decree dated 10.3.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur in civil suit No. 46/88 whereby suit for specific performance filed by respondent (plaintiff) has been decreed deciding all issues in his favour and against the defendant.

(2). The facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal briefly stated, are that the plaintiff (respondent) filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale (Ex. 1) alleged to have been executed between plaintiff and defendant on 27.2.1982 with respect to a plot of land bearing No. A/16 situated in Janta Colony, Jaipur City. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that the defendant (appellant) had agreed to sell his plot in dispute for a sale consideration of Rs. 2 lacs, for which the plaintiff had given him an advance payment of Rs. 25,000/-by way of earnest money at the time of execution of sale agreement (Ex.1). As per conditions of the sale agreement (Ex. 10), the defendant was required to obtain No Objection Certificate from income tax department within two months of its execution, as well as no due certificate for repayment of loan of Rs. 15,000/-to the Collector Jaipur and thereafter to furnish receipts in lieu thereof before execution of a sale deed in performance of sale agreement (Ex. 1).

(3). The plaintiff further alleged that since the defendant did not perform his part of obligations to the conditions under the sale agreement (Ex. 1), a notice dated 20.9.1982 was served upon him through an Advocate to get the sale deed executed but since the defendant did not execute sale deed, he, (plaintiff) had no option but to file the present suit to get enforced specific performance of sale agreement (Ex. 10).

(4). The defendant contested the plaintiffs suit in his written statement denying all allegations and averments made in the plaint. The defendant specifically denied to have executed any such agreement dated 27.2.1982 Ex. 1, as suggested by the plaintiff. The defendant inter-alia contended that the sale in question of suit plot was concocted, forged and prepared on blank papers. The defendant also stated that though he was in debts as result of loan lent from various money lenders and the plaintiff being one of such money lenders/brokers through whom he had lent money, but he was not in a position to clear those debts forthwith at the demand of such money lenders/brokers like the plaintiff, he was pressurized by them to settle his debts and, in fact the agreement of sale dated 27.2.1982 (Ex. 1) was not voluntarily executed by the appellant but in fact, in good faith and in view of the simultaneous agreement for appointing the Arbitrators for disposing of his property under the bonafide belief that it would be disposed of for an adequate consideration of Rs. 7 lacs so as to enable the appellants to clear of his debts and for which the signatures of the appellant were obtained on the blank stamp paper.

(5). The defendant further specifically pleaded in his written statement that in the agreement of appointing aforenamed Arbitrators, one of the important conditions was that the Arbitrators would have powers to examine account books and settle outstanding debts by selling suit plot but with the consent of the defendant as to the sale consideration thereof and further that no dispute in future would be raised by any of the creditors. Since the plaintiff was the key person in getting the Arbitration agreement executed, he forced the defendant to sign on blank stamp papers so that he may not refuse later on from selling the suit plot. This was specifically denied by the defendant by pleading that no other agreement except arbitration agreement was entered into between them and he had never agreed to sell the suit land for Rs. two lacs to the plaintiff. The defendant further averred that the agreement to sale (Ex. 1) was for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document