Whether defendant number1 had received only Rs.20,000/ in relation to the disputed agreement deed dated 1.6.1991?
Respondent No.2 was impleaded in the suit as a proforma defendant.
It was, therefore, submitted that the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt be set aside and the case may be remanded to the trial companyrt with direction to afford opportunity to defendant number1 to lead evidence.
The grant of such an opportunity was opposed on behalf of the plaintiff who was a respondent in the appeal before the High Court.
On the pleadings of the parties the trial companyrt framed the following issues Whether defendant number1 was in need of Rs.20,000/ and in this companycern, on the demand of money from the plaintiff he had asked to execute an agreement and sale deed by way of security to the loan and the intention of both, the parties was number regarding the re sale?
The trial companyrt on appreciation of evidence decreed the suit.
If so whether defendant number1 is entitled to get companypensatory companyts from the plaintiff under section 34A CPC of amount of Rs.20,000/ ?
Whether according to the agreement deed dated 1.6.1991 the plaintiff was always willing to execute the registered sale deed?
His prayer for grant of adjournment to adduce evidence was declined by the trial companyrt and the case was closed after recording the statement of the plaintiff and his witnesses.
In the first appeal before the High Court it was companytended that the trial companyrt had companymitted serious illegality in declining the prayer for adjournment made by defendant number1 to adduce evidence and depriving him an opportunity in that behalf.
If so its effect?
The execution of the agreement was admitted by respondent No.1.
The suit was, however, resisted on the plea that the said agreement was number intended to be a real agreement for sale as it was executed only as a security for the loan advanced by the appellant to respondent No.1.
If so, its effect?
Relief and Costs.
Whether the agreement under dispute was made with a minor.
6 a Whether the plaintiff has filed this suit against defendant number1 frivolously?
Defendant number1 did number produce any evidence before the trial companyrt.
Whether the plaintiff had given numberices to defendant number1 on 9.3.92, 25.5.92, 1.6.92 and 22.1.1994?
K.SABHARWAL, J. Leave granted.
The appellant plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 1st June, 1991 executed by respondent No.1 in his favour in respect of agricultural lands.
