GULAB DEVI SINGH Vs. RITESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 04-01-2016 passed by the First Additional District Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa in Civil Suit No.26-A/2015, by which, suit filed by the respondent No.1-plaintiff for specific performance of contract has been decreed against the appellants/defendants.

(2.) Respondent No.1-plaintiff-Ritesh Singh filed a suit praying for declaration, permanent injunction and also for specific performance of contract on the pleadings, inter alia, that the defendant-Gulab Devi entered into an agreement of sale of disputed property with plaintiff on 13-08-2012, under which, defendant No.1-Gulab Devi agreed to sell the property in dispute for a consideration of Rs.8,90,000/-. Further pleading was that in execution of the said agreement, entire sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff to Gulab Devi, defendant No.1 and possession was also delivered to the plaintiff. Defendant No.1-Gulab Devi had agreed that the plaintiff may get the sale deed executed according to his own convenience and since then, the plaintiff is continuously holding the possession of the disputed property. Further pleading was that after execution of the agreement, though, the plaintiff requested the defendant No.1 to execute and get sale deed registered in his favour, the defendant No.1 kept on avoiding the same, whereas the plaintiff was always ready and willing to execute the sale deed. On 19-04-2013, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1-Gulab Devi has sold the disputed property in favour of the defendant No.3-Dhanraj Singh, vide sale deed dated 28-03-2013. It was, thus, pleaded that the defendant No.1-Gulab Devi illegally sold the land in dispute to defendant No.3 and the said sale deed is null, void and inoperative. The plaintiff thus sought relief that the sale deed dated 28-03-2013 be declared null and void ; decree of specific performance of contract as per agreement dated 13-08-2012 be granted in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants be restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the disputed property. Other ancillary relief were also sought.

(3.) The plaintiff's case was contested by the defendants by filing common written statement. According to the defendants, no agreement of sale, as pleaded by the plaintiff, was ever entered into between the parties nor any amount was received nor possession was handed over. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is a relative of defendant No.1, who is engaged in sale and purchase of property and signatures of defendant No.1 were obtained by stating that the power of attorney has to be prepared, so that the plaintiff may negotiate with others for sale of the property in dispute. According to the defendants, agreement was a forged and fabricated document. Defendant No.1 executed general power of attorney in favour of her son-defendant No.2 on 25-03-2013 and in exercise of that authority, defendant No.2 sold the property in dispute to defendant No.3 for a consideration of Rs.15 Lakhs, vide registered sale deed dated 28-03-2013 and also handed over possession of the property to the defendant No.3. It was also pleaded that the said agreement, containing clause of delivery of possession, is required to be registered, therefore, the agreement does not confer any title in favour of the plaintiff, so as to protect possession on the strength of said agreement of sale by invoking Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.