The burden of proof in cases of fraud and specific performance, the exercise of discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, and the reversal of burden of proof in specific circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

This is a defendant’s second appeal, arising out of a suit for specific performance, which has been decreed by both the Courts below.

2. Heard Mr. Mridul Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant in support of the motion under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908[for short “the Code] and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Ravat, learned Counsel, who appears on caveat, on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent.

3. The plaintiff-respondent, Ramawatar, who shall hereinafter be referred to as “the plaintiff” instituted Original Suit No. 210 of 2002, Ramawatar v. Chabila, before the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalaun at Orai claiming specific performance of a registered agreement to sell dated 13.11.1998, executed in the plaintiff’s favour by Chabila, the sole defendant-appellant. The defendant-appellant aforesaid shall hereinafter be referred to as “the defendant”.

4. It is the plaintiff’s case that the defendant is the recorded bhumidhar-in-possession of an agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 194 ad-measuring 1.165 hectares, situate in Mauja Dharguva, Pargana Orai, Jalaun. It was asserted by the plaintiff that the defendant was in need of money and decided to sell-off his land aforesaid to the plaintiff for a total sale consideration of Rs.70,000/-. For the purpose, the defendant executed a Rs.70,000/-. For the purpose, the defendant executed a registered agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff on 13.11.1998. At the time of execution of the agreement, the plaintiff paid, out of the agreed consideration, a sum of 65,000/-. It was agreed between parties that the Rs.70,00/-. For the purpose, the defendant executed a plaintiff shall pay the remainder of 5,000/- within a period of one year Rs.70,00/-. For the purpose, the defendant executed a and thereupon, the defendant shall execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, transferring the land subject matter of the suit agreement. The land aforesaid shall hereinafter be called as “the suit property”.

5. It is the plaintiff’s case that the suit agreement was executed in the Sub-Registrar’s Office and the earnest was also paid there. The plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is also the plaintiff’s case that the defendant is bound under the suit agreement to receive the remainder of the sale consideration i.e. the sum of Rs. 5,000/- and execute a sale deed in his favour. It is the plaintiff’s Rs.70,000/-. For the purpose, the defendant executed a further case that he requested the defendant to execute the sale deed in his favour, but the defendant did no more than assure the plaintiff that he would abide by his covenant. In fact, he did not. The plaintiff, accordingly, caused a notice dated 01.03.2022 to be served upon the defendant, asking him to receive the remainder of the consideration and execute the requisite sale deed in his favour. The said notice was never replied by the defendant. The plaintiff then caused a notice to be sent to the defendant’s correct address, asking the latter to remain present in the Sub-Registrar’s Office on 17.10.2002, for the purpose of executing the covenanted sale deed upon receipt of the balance sale consideration, in terms of the suit agreement. He was present at the Sub-Registrar’s Office on 17.10.2002, but the defendant did not turn up. Broadly on this cause of action, the suit was instituted.

6. The defendant put in his written statement, also carrying his counterclaim. He admitted his ownership of the suit property, but denied the plaintiff’s case almost about everything else. Most of the defendant’s case is carried in the additional pleas, where it is averred that he was ailing and needed a sum of 3,10,000/-. The defendant approached one Rs.70,00/-. For the purpose, the defendant executed a Ram Prakash, an attesting witness of the suit agreement, requesting a loan. Ram Prakash is alleged to have assured the defendant that he would secure him a loan of 30,000/-, wh