ANIL SINGH Vs. KHOLBAHARIN BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract is the appellant before us.

(2.) THE appellant/plaintiff instituted Civil suit No. 4-A/2005 in the Court of VIIIth additional District Judge, Bilaspur for specific performance of contract dated 22-9-2004 executed by respondent No. 1/defendant whereby she had agreed to sell her undivided 1 /3rd share in the lands in area 9. 22 acres situated in Village Ghuru and ameri, Patwari Halka No. 24, Revenue Circle sakri, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur to the appellant after final adjudication of the civil suit pending before the VIIth Civil judge Class II, Bilaspur and the proceedings pending before the Revenue Courts, for a consideration of Rs. 8 lakhs and had received advance of Rs. 7 Lakhs from the appellant/ plaintiff in cash on the date of agreement. The said agreement Ex. P-1 bore thumb impression of respondent No. 1 and signature of the appellant/plaintiff and was attested by Kishun Singh, P. W. 2 and Vikas shukla, P. W. 3. Readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract was pleaded. It was also averred that after the culmination of the civil suit in favour of respondent no. 1 her 1 /3rd share in the lands at village Ghuru and Village Ameri got separated and name of the respondent No. 1 was thus mutated on Khasra No. 117/3 and 117/9 total area 2. 04 acres of Village Ghuru and Khasra No. 72/1, 72/5 and 73/5, total area 1 acre in Village Ameri (henceforth 'the suit land' ). Upon refusal by the respondent no. 1, despite repeated requests by the appellant, a registered notice was sent on 31-1-2005 to the respondent No. 1/defendant and publication was also made on the same day in a local newspaper. Upon refusal by the respondent No. 1 to accept the registered notice, a suit praying for the relief of specific performance of contract and a permanent injunction to restrain the respondent no. 1/defendant from alienating the suit land in favour of any other person, was instituted.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1/defendant specifically denied having entered into an agreement to sell her undivided 1/3rd share in the lands in area 9. 22 acres in Village Ghuru and Ameri to the appellant/plaintiff and also specifically denied that a sum of Rs. 7 Lakhs was received by her as advance. It was specifically pleaded that taking advantage of her being an illiterate old lady with a weak eyesight and her belonging to the scheduled caste, the appellant/plaintiff had prepared a forged Ekrarnama.