JUDGMENT :

1. Heard counsels for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.

2. The appellants have approached this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.07.1981 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur in Civil Appeal No. 28 of 1980 and Civil Appeal No. 29 of 1980.

3. Both the appeals arise from a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale bearing Suit No. 62 of 1973, filed by the respondent in this second appeal. The suit was partly decreed and aggrieved by the findings of the Trial Court, both parties filed their separate appeals before the First Appellate Court. First Appellate Court set aside Trial Court’s Judgment and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Against the First Appellate Court’s judgment, the defendants in the original suit have filed this second appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are two substantial questions of law involved in the present second appeal, viz.,

(i) whether the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court is legally perverse?

(ii) whether the appellate court has wrongly inferred readiness and willingness on the part of plaintiff-respondents to perform his part of the obligation to execute the sale deed in absence of any evidence to show his willingness?

5. With regard to the substantial question of law number one, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant contends that the first Appellate Court wrongly interpreted evidence on record and gave a finding contrary to the settled law of non-execution of a sale deed on the ground of unconscionable transaction and unfair advantage. Counsel for the appellant refers to points No. 2 and 3 of the judgment of the Appellate Court where it agrees with the view taken by the Trial Court, that the market value of the property must be at least Rs.30,000/-. Whereas, the agreement to sell was for a consideration of Rs.15,000/-. Counsel further argues that both the Courts have considered the admission of the plaintiff-respondent in his oral statement, that the property had a market value of Rs. 35,000/-, but the Appellate Court in its judgment ignored the said admission and ruled against the contention of unfair advantage and inadequacy of consideration taken by the defendant-appellant.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent contends that there is no perversity in the First Appellate Court’s judgment and that inadequacy of consideration is not a ground for non-execution of the sale deed. He further adds that the plea that the signature of the defendant-appellant was forged is not accepted by both the Courts. Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent further avers that defendant-respondent Bansraj has already sold most of his property therefore it can be inferred that he was in dire need of money and the same reasoning has been given by the First Appellate Court while refusing the plea of unconscionability of the terms of the agreement and undue advantage raised by the defendant-appellant.

7. A perusal of the record shows that plaintiff-respondent, Gorakh Prasad as P.W.1, admitted the value of the property at around Rs.35,000/-and both the Courts in their judgments have valued it at no less than Rs. 30,000. Appellate Court, while reversing the finding of the Trial Court regarding the unfair advantage to the plaintiff-respondent, has recorded that defendant Bansraj has been selling his other properties, and therefore, he must be in dire need of money. Furthermore, both the Courts have recorded that the sum of Rs.5,000, paid at the time of execution of the agreement to sell was to be used by the defendant-appellant for some urgent repair works on his property. Both of these findings recorded by the Appellate Court are in contradiction with each other. If the defendant was in dire need of money and he agreed to sell the property at less than half the market value of the property, at Rs.15,000/-, then why would defendant Bansraj take only Rs.5,000 as advance, and not take the e