SUGANI Vs. RAMESHWAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing a Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC'), by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court as affirmed by the Appellate Court.

(2.) THE factual background, as projected by the appellant in a nutshell is as follows: An agreement to sell was executed between the appellant, herein and Mahadeo defendant No. 1 in the suit (since deceased) in respect of the suit property for a sum of Rs.7,000/- on 13-12-1975. Out of the said sum Rs.5,000/- was paid as earnest money on the date of agreement and the balance was payable on the date of the sale. Registration of the sale could not be done as admittedly there was a prohibition on sale of urban property at the relevant point of time. THE agreement to sell was made on 13-12-1975. Defendant No. 1 Mahadeo executed a sale deed in favour of respondents 1 and 2 (defendant Nos. 2and3 in the suit) for a sum of Rs.6,000/- allegedly on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 13-12-1975. On 3-7-1978 a notice was sent by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 demanding arrears of rent from the appellant. On 3-1-1979 appellant filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 13-12-1975. It was inter alia indicated that the defendant No. 1 put off the registration of the sale deed on one pretext or other, on 3-7-1978 she came to know that Mahadeo had executed a sale deed in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and, therefore, suit was filed on 3-1-1979. Further the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had full knowledge of agreement to sale executed by Mahadeo in favour of the appellant, and in spite of that respondent Nos. 1and 2 got the sale deed executed. It was specifically stated in the plaint that she was throughout ready and willing to get the sale deed executed. Written Statement of Mahadeo and the respondents 1 and 2 i.e. defendants 2 and 3 was to the fact that Mahadeo had not entered into any agreement to sell the suit property on 13.12.1975. On the other hand, Mahadeo had entered into an agreement to sell the property dated 18.12.1973 with respondents 1 and 2 which culminated in the sale deed dated 18.4.1977. Mahadeo further alleged that the agreement to sell was a forged document and it did not bear either the signature or L.T.I, of Mahadeo and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 i.e. respondents 1 and 2 herein, had no knowledge of the agreement to sell purported to have been executed on 13.12.1975. Respondents 1 and 2 further took the stand that the sale deed dated 18.4.1977 was executed by Mahadeo and with the full knowledge of the plaintiff appellant who was the tenant. Mahadeo never signed in Hindi and used to sign in Mahajani.

(3.) IN the second appeal following questions were raised by the present respondents who were the appellants before the High Court: