LAW FOR ALL

Specific performance refused = refund order for expenditure incurred = agreement of sale executed for the purpose of loan but not for sale = In the instant case, PW-1 was not clear as to when he paid the amount. Ex.A-29 was not in his favour. There is no recital in that document also, about payment of amount. The defendants 1 and 2 categorically stated that they received a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs, as loan, from the respondents, long ago, for their necessity, and paid the same. In case PW-1 wanted to treat the money paid by him, as the consideration for the land, heavy burden rested upon him, to establish the relevant factors. However, he miserably failed, in this front. Further, DW-1 did not derive any right, much less saleable interest, vis--vis the land, by the time, Ex.A-29 was said to have been executed. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed, upholding the decree, to the extent it has denied the specific performance of agreement of sale, but granting the alternative relief of directing refund of a sum of Rs.15,21,096-10 ps. to the plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4, jointly, leaving it open to them to determine their respective shares, subject to the handing over the original sale deed of the suit property to the 1st defendant. The amount shall carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of the decree, till the date of its realization.