Point of law:
In such a case a writ of mandamus should issue ex debito justiciae to compel the Income Tax Officer to carry out directions given to him by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The High Court would be clearly in error if it refuses to issue a writ on the ground that no manifest injustice has resulted from the order of the Income Tax Officer, in view of the error committed by the Tribunal itself in its order. Such a view is destructive of one of the basic principles of administration of justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. ‘You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink’. The facts of this case bear reaffirming testimony to the wisdom of this proverb.

2. This is a defendant's Second Appeal arising from a Suit for Specific Performance of an agreement to reconvey the suit property and recovery of possession. The suit property is agricultural land bearing Khasra no.694, admeasuring 2 bigha,9 biswa and 3 biswansi, situate at Mauza Rampur, Pargana and District Muzaffar Nagar.

3. The Appeal has been brought by the defendant, Indraj Singh from the appellate decree of Sri Ram Surat, the then Second Additional District Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, dated 31.03.1995, dismissing Civil Appeal no.234 of 1976 with costs, and affirming an original decree of Sri D.C. Srivastava, the then Additional Civil Judge, Muzaffar Nagar, dated 27.08.1976, decreeing with costs Original Suit no.64 of 1974 for the relief mentioned hereinbefore.

4. The decree of the Court of first instance was affirmed earlier by the Lower Appellate Court in Civil Appeal no.234 of 1976 by its judgment and decree of 30th April, 1977. The said decree was set aside by this Court in Second Appeal no.1732 of 1977 with an order of remand to the Lower Appellate Court requiring the appeal to be decided afresh. It is in consequence of the order of remand made by this Court in the Second Appeal, last mentioned that the impugned appellate decree has come to be passed.

5. The defendant who has failed before the Lower Appellate Court, a second time, has brought the present Second Appeal.

6. Kashi Ram, the plaintiff-respondent (for short the plaintiff) instituted Original Suit no.64 of 1974 with allegations to the effect that the defendant on the plaintiff's request lent him a sum of Rs.2500/-. The plaintiff could not repay the debt. Rather, he was in further need of Rs.2000/-that led him to request the defendant again. The defendant agreed to lend a further sum of Rs.2000/-on condition that the suit property be conveyed by the plaintiff to the defendant for a period of three years with a covenant that if within this period of three years, the plaintiff would liquidate the debt by repaying a sum of Rs.7000/-to the defendant, the defendant shall reconvey the suit property in favour of the plaintiff by a registered conveyance, and that thereupon the entire debt, the principal and accrued interest included, shall stand discharged. It is the plaintiff's case that he needed the money, and, therefore, agreed to the terms. The plaintiff, in consequence, executed a registered sale deed dated 27.07.1971 transferring the suit property in favour of the defendant. The sale deed carried a recital that a sum of Rs.7000/-has been advanced by the defendant. It is pleaded that the plaintiff received a sum of Rs.4500/-(and not Rs.7000/-) in the manner that Rs.2500/-were received by the plaintiff as loan from the defendant, and further that Rs.2000/-(also by way of loan) were received by the plaintiff from the defendant. Thus, according to the plaintiff, he received a total sum of Rs.4500/- in loan from the defendant. The plaintiff's case is that a sum of Rs.7000/-was shown as consideration in the sale deed, where the additional sum of Rs.2500/-accounts for the interest payable on the principal of Rs.4500/-, which the plaintiff had promised to pay back within the time period of three years. The plaint case shows that the plaintiff was to remain in possession of the suit property.

7. There is a pleading also to the effect, on behalf of the plaintiff, that the defendant secured the plaintiff's thumb impressions on some blank papers. The plaint case then proceeds that contemporaneously with the execution of the sale deed dated 27.07.1971 in favour of the defendant by the plaintiff, an agreement dated 27.07.1971 was also executed between the plaintiff and the defendant, where the defendant agreed to reconvey the suit property to the plaintiff on the following conditions:

“(a) that in case the plaintiff or his heirs pai