Ali Vs. Vinod Khanna & Anr  Insc 419 (30 July 2004)
Bhan & S.H. Kapadia Bhan, J.
(hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant") entered into a
registered agreement to sell the land measuring 3.40 acres on 8.4.1986 with the
defendant/respondents (hereinafter referred to as "respondents"). Two
suits were filed in the Trial Court. Suit No. 139 of 1987 was filed by the
appellant for cancellation of the written agreement dated 8.4.1986 with the
averment that the appellant was Bhumidhar in possession of the disputed plots
mentioned in the plaint, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were money lenders and
defendant No. 3 was their servant (who has not been impleaded as party in the
civil appeal). Appellant needed Rs. 1000/-. Defendant No. 3 took the appellant
to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who declined to advance the loan of Rs. 1000/- on a
promissory note and insisted to advance the loan through a registered document.
Appellant agreed to execute the registered agreement to secure the loan and went
to the office of the Sub-Registrar along with the defendants on 8.4.1986.
was prepared and typed on the stamp paper and signatures of the appellant were
obtained and he was advanced a sum of Rs. 1000/- as loan.
agreement was registered on the same day. The appellant wanted to repay the
loan but when the respondents did not accept the same he got suspicious about
their intention. He made enquiries and came to know that a fraud was practised
on him by respondents who fraudulently got executed the agreement to sell
instead of the document to secure the loan of Rs. 1000/-. Suit was filed for
the cancellation of the agreement to sell. Suit No. 425 of 1987 was filed by
the respondents for specific performance of agreement to sell with the averment
that the appellant had agreed to transfer the suit land for Rs. one lakh out of
which Rs. 30,000/- was paid to him as earnest money. According to the terms of
the agreement the appellant was to execute the sale deed within 11 months after
obtaining permission from the Consolidation Officer. As appellant refused to
execute the sale deed the suit was filed for specific performance of the
agreement. Both the suits were contested.
Trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the appellant for cancellation of the
agreement and decreed the suit filed by the respondents for specific
performance. Appellant filed an appeal against the order passed in suit No. 425
of 1987 which was dismissed by the first Appellate Court.
against which the appellant filed second appeal which has been dismissed by the
High Court on re-appreciation of the entire evidence came to the same
conclusion as that of the courts below. Counsel for the appellant failed to
point out any error in the findings recorded by the courts below.
only contention raised by him is that the agreement was unconscionable as the
price of land at the time of the alleged agreement to sell was more than 20 lakhs
and the appellant is being deprived of his valuable land for a petty amount. On
perusal of the written statement filed by the appellant in the Trial Court we
find that no such plea was raised in the written statement.
issue was framed. No evidence was led by the appellant to prove that the market
price of the land was Rs. 20 lakhs as argued before us. In the absence of plea
having been raised or an issue framed or evidence led on the point, we are
unable to hold that the agreement to sell was unconscionable.
not find any error in the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below,
accordingly, the appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs.