A contract obtained by coercion and undue influence is voidable and cannot be enforced.

A.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 7th March, 1996 passed by learned Second Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad in Civil Suit No. 2-A/1991 whereby the suit of plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of contract has been decreed, this first appeal under Section 96 CPC has been filed by the defendant. In this judgment, wherever the expression 'defendant' is used it would mean first defendant Kishanlal because second defendant, the State of M.P. has been impleaded as formal party in view of Order I Rule 3(B) State Amendment in the CPC.

2. In brief, the suit of plaintiff is that the suit land is 5 acres of agricultural land situated in Mouza Banada, Tehsil Seoni Malwa, District Hoshangabad is owned by appellant-defendant in his Bhumiswami right having possession over it. The defendant approached respondent-plaintiff on 7.3.1990 at Seoni Malwa and expressed his desire to sell 5 acres of his land at the market rate Rs. 10,000/- per acre and the said proposal was accepted by the plaintiff and he asked the defendant to execute a document of agreement of sale and eventually on 7.3.1990 a document of agreement of sale was executed. It is the further case of plaintiff that the sale consideration was agreed between the parties to be Rs. 50,000/- and out of this amount a sum of Rs. 45,000/- was paid on the date of agreement of sale and this has also been embodied in the document of agreement of sale. According to the plaintiff it was agreed between the parties that the balance amount of consideration Rs. 5,000/- shall be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed and it was agreed that the sale deed will be executed on or before 30.6.1990 at the pleasure of the plaintiff.

3. In the plaint it has also been pleaded that the plaintiff is carrying on the business at Banapura and the defendant is the resident of interior village Mouza Banada of Tehsil Seoni Malwa. Further pleading of the plaintiff is that the defendant was desirous to get the suit property sold because he wanted to establish his business at Banapura. According to the plaint averments the defendant was not able to manage his land properly and was not getting profits from the disputed land and therefore, out of his entire holdings of agricultural land he was desirous to sell 5 acres of land to the plaintiff. It has been further pleaded in the plaint para 2(b) that because in the vicinity of Seoni Malwa the plaintiff may not get any land @ Rs. 10,000/- per acre as a result of which he accepted the offer of defendant to purchase his 5 acres of land for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. The plaintiff also expressed his willingness that immediately he is ready to pay entire sale consideration and is ready to get the sale deed executed, on this the defendant told that although he is ready to execute the sale deed but he has to go out of station and therefore, instead of executing the sale deed and getting it registered a document of agreement of sale may be executed, eventually the aforesaid agreement of sale was executed.

4. In para-3 of the plaint it has been pleaded by the plaintiff that despite the plaintiff orally requested defendant to get the sale deed executed but he tried to avoid it and when it created doubt in the mind of plaintiff that defendant may turn up from his part of contract, he sent a notice by registered A/d post through his counsel on 11.6.1990 asking the defendant to get the sale deed executed on 30.6.1990 and in case this date is not suitable to him, the date which is suitable to him may be intimated so that the sale deed may be executed on that date. This notice of plaintiff was received by defendant on 12.6.1990 but till the suit was filed on 10.12.1990 the sale deed was not executed by the defendant. Further it has been pleaded that instead of getting the sale deed executed a false reply was sent by defendant through his counsel Shri D.S. Mandloi in which a false story has been set up but the plaintif