Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
IN
1
REPORTABLE
Versus
JUDGMENT
A.S. Bopanna,J.
Digitally signed by
and decreed the suit whereby the redemption of the suit land was
ASHWANI KUMAR
Date: 2019.07.17
10:07:31 IST
Reason:
aggrieved by the said judgment was before the lower appellate court
through its judgment dated 29th June, 1990 allowed the appeal and
set aside the judgment and decree of the Civil Court. Accordingly,
consequently decreed the suit. The appellant herein who was the
defendant in the suit is, therefore, before this Court in the present
appeal.
3. The brief facts are that the plaintiff and the defendant were
known to each other and due to such acquaintance, the plaintiff had
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
3
dated 10th December, 1968 was also entered into between the parties
whereby the plaintiff had agreed to repay the said amount and
entered into on 29th August, 1969 between the parties under which
through his Advocate. The defendant got replied the said notice on
23rd September, 1980 and disputed the claim put forth by the
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
4
plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit as stated above. The
disputing the claim. The trial court though had framed several
hereunder:
should be an intrinsic part of the very sale deed which will be the
Exhibit 23, namely, the sale deed dated 10 th December, 1968 would
make it clear that the document does not disclose that the
the plaintiff to claim that the same indicates that the transaction is
to the sum of Rs.5,000/- which was taken by the plaintiff earlier and
August, 1969. The case, therefore, set up by the defendant was that
reconveyance was agreed, since the amount was not repaid within
one year, though the defendant had agreed to reconvey the property,
the sale deed had become absolute since the plaintiff had failed to
also refer to the decision in the case of Pandit Chunchun Jha vs.
Shankar Shinde & Ors. vs. Rajaram Sripad Joshi (D) Lrs. and
decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and had
further held therein that even in the case of a single document the
that in the instant case admittedly the claim of the plaintiff is based
Hence at the outset, it is evident that the case of the plaintiff cannot
sale. That apart even if the nature of the transaction is taken note
of and in that context if the sale dated 10th December, 1968 (Exh.23)
(Exh.24) is taken note, the same cannot alter recitals in the sale
would disclose that not only the plaintiff has not repaid the sum of
would be forfeited and the sale deed would become absolute after
note, since the amount was not repaid the defendant had acquired
proceedings the very contention urged herein had been taken note
10. Though the learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon
Arthur Import and Export Co., (2019) 3 SCC 191 to contend that
extinguish the title for such land, nor has it any presumptive value
defendant had acted upon the sale deed dated 10 th December, 1968
suit seeking for the relief of specific performance. In such suit the
below is taken note, we are of the opinion that the Civil Court and
the High Court were not justified in their conclusion. On the other
1984 has taken into consideration the factual aspects in its correct
perspective and keeping in view the legal position had allowed the
appeal and dismissed the suit. Hence, we hereby set aside the
No.233 of 1984.
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
12
Regular Civil Suit No.237 of 1980 filed by the plaintiff i.e. the
order as to costs.
……………………….J.
(R. BANUMATHI)
……………………….J.
(A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi,
July 16, 2019