The court affirmed the trial court's discretionary refusal of specific performance in view of potential hardship on the elderly defendant, highlighting the essential proof of contract validity required from the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. - This is an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC from the appellate judgment and decree dated 07.01.2019 and 11.01.2019 respectively passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No. 17 of 2015 affirming the original judgment and decree dated 06.04.2015 and 09.04.2015 respectively passed by the Civil Judge, Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit No. 5 of 2013.

2. For the sake of brevity the parties are referred to as in the title suit No. 17 of 2015. Specific performance of agreement for sale dated 28.07.2011 sought to be enforced therein. The defendant being the absolute owner of the land measuring 0.10 acres comprised in Khatian No. 932/1-2, appertaining to present plot Nos. 1538, and 1539 situated at Mouja- Gandhigram under Tahsil- Gandhigram, Sub-Division- Mohanpur hereinafter referred as the suit land, entered into the agreement for sale to sell the suit land to the plaintiff in consideration of Rs. 2,10,000/-. An advance of Rs. 10,000/- was paid on the date of agreement. The period stipulated for the execution of sale deed was upto 08.10.2012. The plaintiff after arranging balance amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- kept regular contact with the defendant and on 20.08.2012 and 02.09.2012 the plaintiff along with this relatives verbally made request to the defendant to accept the balance amount to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement for sale. Having no response from the defendant the plaintiff served a notice dated 21.09.2012 demanding execution of the sale deed, but inspite of receiving notice the defendant did not turn up.

3. The defendant, contested the suit by filing written statement and denied all the allegations laid by the plaintiff. The defendant also denied to have entered into any agreement or received the consideration money of Rs. 10,000/-.

4. The defendant stated further, inter alia, that her son, a person with disability was creating pressure upon her to transfer her land in his favour, but the defendant was not ready to do so. The plaintiff having visiting terms in the house of the defendant taking advantage of her bonafide belief and good faith interfered the dispute between her and her son. Accordingly, their dispute was resolved in a meeting held in presence of plaintiff and some other local people in the month of July, 2011. Immediately, after meeting the plaintiff came to the house of the defendant and asked her to put thumb impression on some papers on the pretest of writing down the decision of the meeting. The defendant on good faith put her thumb impression on a blank paper and subsequently the plaintiff managed to scribe the alleged agreement for sale on those blank papers. The defendant further added that the value of the suit land on the date of alleged agreement for sale would not be less than Rs. 70,000/- and therefore, the plaintiff's claim of purchasing the suit land in consideration of Rs. 2,10,000/- in improbable. The alleged agreement for sale having not registered has also got no legal force, the defendant further averred.

5. On the material proposition of law and fact upon which the parties are at variance, following issues were framed by the trial court:

1. Is the suit maintainable in its present form and nature?

2. Is the plaintiff and defendant entered into an unregistered for sale dated 28.07.2011 and defendant agreed to transfer the suit land to the plaintiff for consideration money of Rs. 2,10,000/- within the stipulated period mentioned in the agreement?

3. Is the alleged agreement f