returned when the appellant hands over the possession of the suit property. It is further alleged that the son of the respondent, Shri Sahil Bhayana, took possession of the first floor from the appellant on the pretext that the money would be returned only when the possession of the first floor is delivered. The appellant has also claimed that the other brother-in-law of the respondent, Shri Satish Bhayana, also took a loan of Rs. 3,80,000/- from him, and once again, the son of the respondent assured that this amount would also be returned. The appellant pleaded that the possession of the first floor of the property was accordingly given back by the appellant in the month of February, 2018. The appellant claims that thereafter, it was decided that either Shri Sahil Bayana will return back money to the appellant or Shri Ashok Bayana will execute the sale deed in respect of another property, that is, 1512, Outram Lines, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Kingsway Camp, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi- 110009, whereafter the appellant shall hand over possession of the remaining portion of the property. The appellant claimed that Shri Ashok Bayana entered into an agreement to sell with the appellant on 23.05.2017 and as he failed to comply with the same, the appellant has filed a suit against Shri Ashok Bayana seeking specific performance of the said agreement. He has also filed a Suit against Shri Satish Bayana seeking recovery of the loan of Rs. 3,80,000/-. The appellant claimed that it was agreed that the rent shall stand reduced to Rs. 15,000/-, which also was not paid as Shri Askok Bayana instructed him not to pay the same stating that there was some family dispute with the respondent.
