JUDGMENT

A. K. PARICHHA, J. — This is an appeal by the unsuccess¬ful plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.450 of 2002.

2. Appellant, as plaintiff, filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction against the present respondent. The case of the plaintiff in essence, is that the defendant is the owner of the property described in Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint and he entered into an agreement with her (plaintiff) for sale of that property as he was in dire need of money for the treatment of his wife, who was suffering from cancer. The plaintiff pleaded that in that negotiation the sale price of the suit property was fixed at Rs. 6 lakhs out of which the defendant received an advance consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs on 15.1.2000. Agreeing that he would execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within a period of two years after receiving the remaining consideration money of Rs.2 lakhs. The plaintiff claims that in support of this agreement and transac¬tion, the agreement was made and for advance amount of Rs.4 lakhs, money receipt was also given by the defendant. According to the plaintiff after this agreement, he remained in possession of the suit property and waited for two years. But the defendant did not execute the registered sale deed although she was all along ready to pay the remaining consideration to him. The plain¬tiff alleged that after passing of these two years, he approached the defendant for execution of the registered sale deed, but the defendant avoided to execute the sale deed and threatened to dispossess her from the suit property forcibly through antisocial elements, as a result of which she had to send a lawyer’s notice on 9.5.2002 asking the defendant to receive the balance consider¬ation money and execute the registered sale deed in her favour within one month of receipt of the notice. Since the defendant did not oblige and went on threatening to dispossess her from the suit property, finding no other way, she filed the suit for specific performance of contract.

3. The defendant in his written statement denied the plaint averments regarding execution of the agreement for sale of the suit house, receipt of any advance money, grant of any money receipt or delivery of possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. He pleaded that the suit property belonged to his mother and on the death of his mother, he and his sisters came into joint possession of that property. He pleaded that the suit property comprises of six tenanted premises within a common com¬pound wall with common electricity and water supply and the plaintiff with her husband was residing as tenant in one of the tenanted premises on a monthly rent of Rs.1100/-. Defendant pleaded that on 15.1.2000 the husband of the plaintiff came to his house and induced him to take HUDCO loan of Rs.4,00,000/- to repair and reconstruct the house which had been damaged in Super Cyclone telling him that by availing such loan he can get subsidy of Rs.1,00,000/-, and told that for the purpose of getting that loan the defendant would have to give three affidavits basing on which the income certificate and other documents would be pro¬cured. Since the husband of the plaintiff always introduced himself as an advocate, the defendant believed him and on his advice purchased the required stamp papers, cartridge papers and vakalatnama, signed on those blank papers and vakalatnama and handed over the same along with Rs.1,000/- to the husband of the plaintiff. The defendant alleged that the husband of the plain¬tiff converted those stamp papers and cartridge papers into the alleged agreement and receipt. The defendant further pleaded that he never received the HUDCO loan, but sometimes in 2002 he came to know that the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific per¬formance contract. According to the defendant, the plaintiff and her husband are not ent