IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Appellate court will not reverse finding of fact of trial court where one of possible views were taken by trial court.
(2) Agreement to sell – Specific performance of contract – Judgment and decree passed by trial court restored.

JUDGMENT

By the Court:- Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Though notice has validly been served upon the respondent yet no one turns up on behalf of the respondent in spite of repeated calls, hence, this appeal is heard and disposed of ex-parte against the respondent.

3. This Second Appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been preferred against the judgment of reversal dated 31.03.2015 passed by learned District Judge-I, Bermo at Tenughat in Title Appeal No.08 of 2002 by which the learned First Appellate Court allowed the appeal on contest and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court being the court of Munsif, Bermo at Tenughat in Title Suit No.01 of 1998 dated 09.10.2002 by which the learned Munsif decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the contract on contest and directed the defendant to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff within two months.

4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff took a friendly loan of Rs.10,000/- in the year 1991 from the defendant who was a distant relative of the plaintiff and as a condition of the said loan, the plaintiff agreed to transfer land of area 0.2½ acre along with residential house standing thereon described in Schedule A of the plaint. The defendant also agreed that whenever within a period of seven years from the date of transfer of the property, the plaintiff would offer the said amount of Rs.10,000/-, the defendant would reconvey the transferred properties to the plaintiff on the very same day without any hesitation and accordingly transferred Schedule A land by executing a registered sale-deed dated 14.03.1991 vide deed No.1307 in favour of the defendant against the receipt payment of the said amount of Rs.10,000/-. The defendant in terms of the said agreement executed a contemporaneous deed of agreement in favour of the plaintiff on the same day against the execution of the sale-deed dated 14.03.1991 with the condition that the defendant would reconvey the vended properties to the plaintiff on the very same day of the amount of Rs.10,000/- returned by the plaintiff. Though it was mentioned in the sale-deed that the defendant was put in possession over the suit land but in fact the defendant was never put in possession over the same and the possession of the suit property remained all along with the plaintiff. It is the further case of the plaintiff that in connivance with the defendant, the deed-writers obtained the signature of the plaintiff and her husband on several plain and blank papers by leading the plaintiff to believe that such papers are required for the sale and re-conveyance. The plaintiff thereafter arranged the amount of Rs.10,000/- taken by her from the defendant and approached the defendant on 25.05.1994 and 10.06.1994 and tendered the said amount of Rs.10,000/- and requested the defendant to accept the money and to reconvey the Schedule A properties of the plaint but the defendant deferred the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly on 24.06.1994, the defendant refused to do so and to perform her part of contract and on the other hand the defendant threatened to commit bloodshed with murder. The plaintiff reported the matter to the local Mukhiya who called the defendant and requested to reconvey the suit property to the plaintiff but even then the defendant refused to reconvey the same. The husband of the plaintiff filed complaint case involving the offences punishable under Section 452, 323, 34, 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the defendant and her husband wherein the accused persons have been convicted in the court of Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Bermo at Tenughat. The plaintiff served an advocate’s notice upon the defendant on 28.06.1994; requesting reconveyance of the said suit properties in favour of the plaintiff but the defendant replied that the plaintiff took the said house for the monthly rent of Rs.400/- by executing an agreement dated