Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The appellant/defendant denying all the allegations in the plaint and contending in the written statement as follows:

(i) Having come to know about the existence of false agreement of sale, appellant returned Rs.35,000/- to the respondent and issued a legal notice to the respondent to the effect that the alleged agreement of sale was cancelled.

The personal deposit of Rs.12,70,000/- made by the respondent will not amounts to comply of condition of said agreement. The respondent is not entitled to get the sale registered as there is no consensus ad idem. There is no concluded contract between the parties. There is no cause of action to file the suit. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.

7. On these pleadings, the trial Court settled the following issues for trial:

"1.Whether the agreement of sale dated 11.01.2005 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2.Whether there is no consensus ad idem and contract is vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation, as being claimed by the defendant? and

3.To what relief?"

8. At the trial, on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined while relying on Exs.A.1 to A.12 in support of his contentions. On behalf of the appellant/defendant, D.W.1 was examined and no documents were exhibited.

12. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the trial Court.

13. It is against this backdrop, the following points, which arise for determination need consideration now:

1. Whether the agreement of sale dated 11.01.2005 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2. Whether there is no consensus ad idem between the parties and the contract is vitiated under misrepresentation and fraud as claimed by the defendant?

52. Coming to the point of consensus ad idem is concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the property and there is no dispute that defendant intended to sell the same. On the other hand, he went on to say in the written statement that he never offered to sell the suit schedule property to anyone, whereas Ex.A.8 clearly goes to show that himself agreed to sell the same and executed Ex.A.1. The defendant did not offer to sell the property is concerned, the document referred in Exs.A.1, A.3 to A.9 clearly goes to show with regard to the suit schedule property alone. There was a transaction taken place in between plaintiff and defendant and defendant is very much aware that land being sold to the plaintiff, otherwise he would not have issued Ex.A.8 notice. Thus, it is clinching to establish that defendant intended to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. Thereby, material placed on record in particularly before the trail Court clearly shows that there is consensus ad idem in between the plaintiff and defendant, otherwise Ex.A.1 would not have been executed.