LAWS(SC)-2001-3-165

SATNAM SINGH Vs. SADHU SINGH

Decided On March 29, 2001
SATNAM SINGH Appellant
V/S
SADHU SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Bhagat Singh, son of Sunder Singh, on 29/9/1981, executed an agreement for sale in respect of 14 marlas of agricultural land in favour of Onkar Singh, s/o Bhagat Singh. The said agreement for sale stated that the name of vendor, i. e. , Bhagat Singh has been wrongly entered as Bhagat Singh s/o Ram Singh and after correction of his name, he would sell the said land @ Rs. 300. 00 per marla to Onkar singh, s/o Bhagat Singh. It is not disputed that, on 5/9/1983, during consolidation proceedings, the Consolidation Officer corrected the name of Bhagat Singh. Thereafter, on 1/9/1985, the plaintiffs approached the vendor for executing the sale deed. However, the vendorbhagat Singh, got the name of his grandson mutated in respect of the said plot of land. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs, on 29/3/1986, filed a suit for specific performance. The defendants-respondents filed a written statement and one of the pleas taken was that the agreement for sale was not executed by Bhagat Singh as he was literate and always signed the documents and has never put his thumb impression. On behalf of the plaintiffs, teja Singh, one of the attesting witnesses was examined. Beside Teja Singh, Jagdish Singh uppal, the Scribe who wrote the agreement of sale was also examined. Satnam Singh s/o onkar Singh was also examined. All these witnesses stated that the agreement, Ex. P-1, was executed in their presence. The defendants did not examine Bhagat Singh and no explanation whatsoever was given why he did not enter into the witness box. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record, decreed the suit. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred appeal before the first appellate court. The appellate court was of the view that since Teja singh was not put up for cross-examination, his statement, during the examination-in-chief cannot be relied upon. The first appellate court was also of the view that Jagdish Singh Uppal, the Scribe, did not know the parties to the agreement, therefore, his evidence is not reliable. The appellate court also found that the suit brought by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation as the plaintiffs were present on 5/3/1983 when the Consolidation Officer passed the order for correction of the name of bhagat Singh. Consequently, the appeal filed by the defendants was allowed and the suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs' second appeal was dismissed by the High Court. It is against the said judgment, these appeals have been preferred before us.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants urged that the view taken by the first appellate court and the High Court that agreement for sale was not proved and that the suit brought by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation is patently erroneous. We find substance in the agreement.

(3.) So far as the question of limitation is concerned, it is not disputed that the Consolidation officer passed the order for correction of name of Bhagat Singh on 5/9/1983 and not on 5/3/1983 as noted by the first appellate court. If it is taken that the plaintiffs were present on the said date, i. e. , 5/9/1983, the suit filed by them on 29/3/1986, was well within time. We, therefore, find that the view taken by the first appellate court and the High Court that the suit was barred by limitation is erroneous. So far as the question whether the plaintiffs failed to prove the agreement for sale is concerned, the first appellate Court as well as the High Court rejected the evidence of plaintiffs on irrelevant ground. It has come on evidence on record that Teja Singh, one of the attesting witnesses, after his examinstion-in- chief died and, therefore, he could not put up for cross-examination. Under such circumstances, the evidence of Teja Singh could not have been excluded. Similarly, the evidence of jagdish Singh Uppal, the Scribe, ought not to have been rejected on the ground that he did not know the parties personally. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the high Court in rejecting the plaintiffs' evidence was erroneous.