MANJU GOYAL AND OTHERS Vs. SANTOSH GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 11th May, 2007 passed by the Additional District Judge, Pendraroad, District-Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 22-A/2006 by which the respondent-plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession and permanent injunction has been decreed in his favour and against the appellants-defendant. By the impugned judgment and decree, the agreement dated 9.10.2004 has been declared void and illegal and appellants-defendant is directed to handover the possession of the house in dispute to the plaintiff. Learned trial Court has also granted decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the appellants-defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute.

(2.) Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaratory decree, recovery of possession of the house in dispute and also for permanent injunction on the pleadings inter alia that the house in dispute is owned by the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the plaintiff and defendant were known to each other and the plaintiff, in need of money, demanded a loan of Rs. 25,000/- from Rajmal Goyal, the defendant No. It was the case of the plaintiff that a stamp paper was purchased and the plaintiff was asked to sign on stamp paper by misleading him that the document relates to transaction of loan of Rs. 25,000/- taken by the plaintiff from the defendant No. The plaintiff, it is stated, had never agreed to sell his property to defendant No. 1 nor he ever executed any sale deed or any agreement of sale with defendant No. Further case of the plaintiff was that when the plaintiff went to the house of defendant in the month of November 2004 to return the loan amount, the defendant No. 2 was not found and his brother defendant No. 3 asked him to leave the money with assurance that when defendant No. 2 returns, the stamp paper would be returned to the plaintiff. It was the case of the plaintiff that thereafter on 20th November, 2004, defendant Nos. 2 & 3 along with 8 to 10 armed persons arrived in the disputed house, abused plaintiff's wife and attempted to dispossess them, in respect of which a report was lodged in the police station. Later on, it is pleaded, again attempt was made to dispossess by throwing away households and movable property of the plaintiff, kept in the disputed house, on 28.11.2004 and again a report was made in the police station but no action was taken and on the other hand, on the basis of report lodged by the defendants, a false case of commission of offence under Section 307, IPC was registered by the police against the plaintiff and other persons on 10.1.2005. Finally, the defendants succeeded in their attempt to dispossess the plaintiff and his wife by use of criminal force. When no action was taken, the wife of the plaintiff filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendraroad. Further allegation was that thereafter on 10.1.2005, defendant again arrived with 10 to 12 armed persons and damaged the house, broke the shutter and took possession of the house by throwing movable properties of the plaintiff which was kept in the house. It was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff never sold his property to the defendant and his signatures were obtained on so called agreement dated 9.10.2004 by playing fraud and misleading and preparing a forged document and, therefore, in these circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to recovery of possession of the property in dispute from the defendant.

(3.) The defendant, in rebuttal of the plaintiff pleadings, came out with the case that the plaintiff was in need of money for repayment of loan borrowed by him towards purchase of a vehicle and therefore, the plaintiff proposed to sell the shop to defendant No. 2 and a deal was struck for sale of the shop in dispute for consideration of Rs. 4 lakh towards which, advance of Rs. 71,000/- was paid to the plaintiff by the defendant No. 2. It was further pleaded that stamp was also purchased by the plaintiff and it was agreed to execute the deed of agreement after receipt of consideration. Thereafter, defendant No. 2 again paid Rs. 25,000/- and then leaving the balance of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid at the time of registration, a total of Rs. 3,75,000/- was paid by the defendant No. 2 to plaintiff. Further pleading of the defendant was that thereafter the agreement of sale prepared on the stamp paper was notarized before the Notary on 9.10.2004 which was signed by the defendant No. 1 in the presence of witnesses. Plaintiff's case of there being a loan transaction between the parties was denied. According to written statement of the defendant, possession of the house was also handed over to defendant after receiving part consideration. According to the defendant, when the defendant insisted on execution of sale deed, the plaintiff started avoiding and then defendant came to know that house in dispute was situated on Government land and that was the reason why the plaintiff was avoiding to execute the sale deed and at this stage, the dispute arose between the parties in which the plaintiff along with his associates came to the spot, assaulted the defendant which led to lodging a police case and registration of offence under Section 307, IPC against the plaintiff and others.