MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL,J. - (1.)The civil suit no.65/1993 filed by the respondent-plaintiff (for brevity-'the plaintiff') seeking specific performance of the agreement dtd. 26/2/1989 came to be decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kota (for brevity-'the learned trial court') vide judgement dtd. 1/9/2005 and the civil regular appeal no.21/2005 (CIS 113/2005) preferred thereagainst by the appellant/defendant (for brevity-the defendant') has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Kota (for brevity-'the learned appellate court') vide judgement and decree dtd. 20/2/2020.
(2.)The relevant facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit stating therein that vide sale agreement dtd. 26/2/1989, the defendant agreed to sell his agricultural land comprising of khasra nos.156 and 157 measuring 0.74 hectares and 0.64 hectares respectively situated in Naya Nohra, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota to him for a sale consideration of Rs.50,000.00 out of which the defendant received a sum of Rs.25,000.00 in cash and a sum of Rs.6,000.00 through cheque no.CA 188/47 on that very day and possession of the subject property was handed over to him. It was stated that despite repeated requests and service of notices upon the defendant, he avoided execution of the sale deed whereas, the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. Therefore, the decree of specific performance was prayed for.
(3.)The defendant in his written statement admitting the receipt of cheque worth Rs.6000.00 and possession of the subject land being with the plaintiff, submitted that it was not in pursuance of subject agreement. In special plea, it was submitted that he has received no consideration under the sale agreement dtd. 26/2/1989. It was averred that under an agreement executed in the year 1986, he agreed to sell the subject land in favour of wife of Shri Mukut Bihari, the guardian of the plaintiff and prior thereto, possession of the subject land was already handed over by him to Shri Mukut Bihari for cultivation for a consideration of Rs.2,000.00 per year. It was stated that since the agreement was not complied with by Shri Mukut Bihari, it came to an end. Execution of any sale agreement in between the parties was specifically denied by the defendant.