defendant to evidence that it is he, who had paid the entire sale consideration for the acquisition of the Plot No.310 and in such view of the matter, the case projected by the defendant that only in that context, the plaintiff had entrusted the allotment letter and the sale deed cannot be believed and had been rightly rejected by the Courts below. Furthermore, if really, the plaintiff had agreed to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant as put forth by the defendant in his written statement, as found and held by the Courts below, the defendant would have endeavoured to place acceptable and convincing materials that the plaintiff had agreed to sell the abovesaid plot to him and as rightly held by the Courts below, in the event of the failure of the plaintiff to execute the sale deed in his favour at that point of time, the defendant would have taken appropriate legal action against the plaintiff. On the other hand, when there is no material on the part of the defendant evidencing that the plaintiff had agreed to execute the sale deed as abovenoted, when the defendant has also failed to establish that it is he, who had paid the entire amount for the purchase of the Plot No.310, in such view of the matter, there is no need on the part of the plaintiff to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant, as there had been no consensus ad idem between the parties qua the sale of the abovesaid Plot by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant. As rightly determined by the Courts below, if the abovesaid version put forth by the defendant has any element of truth, the defendant would have instituted the suit for specific performance against the plaintiff as per law and initiated other legal action and on the other hand, nothing has been projected on the part of the defendant evidencing that he had taken any further steps for the accomplishment of the sale transaction put forth by him in the written pleas. The contention put forth by the defendant that he has paid certain amount by way of cheque to the plaintiff, as rightly determined by the Courts below, is found to be in respect of the hand loan availed from the plaintiff for the treatment of Heart attack and when the abovesaid amount is not shown to be only towards the sale consideration as such, the abovesaid version of the defendant has been rightly turned down by the Courts below and accordingly, the plaintiff being the lawful owner of the Plot No.310 and he is entitled to retain the custody of the allotment letter and the sale deed pertaining to the same and the defendant has failed to establish the lawful custody of those title documents with him, in such view of the matter, the Courts below are found to be justified in accepting the plaintiff's case and granting the relief in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for.
