LAV KUMAR SINGH Vs. ASHOK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal by defendant is against the judgment and decree dated 15.04.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Janjgir in Civil Suit No. 20-A/1994 whereby the suit for specific performance has been decreed.

(2.) The suit was filed by one Ashok Singh (since deceased) that the plaintiff and the respondents appellants are cousin brothers, they were carrying on partnership business which specifically was dissolved and few of the partners came to the share of Lav Kumar Singh. It was case of the plaintiff that on 18.02.21993 he entered into an agreement for purchase of few lands situated at village Mouja Pendrih bearing Khasra No.530/2010 admeasuring 0.08 acres; at Akaltara, Kh.No.350/15 admeasuring 0.03 acres, at village Arjuni Kh.No.727/3 admeasuring 0.10 acres, at Janjgir Kh.No.3978/1 admeasuring 0.05 acres (20 ft x 112 ft) for a total consideration of Rs.75000/-. It is stated that at the time of agreement, an amount of Rs.70,000/- was paid as a sale consideration and as per the agreement, the possession of land was also handed over and the sale was to be completed by 10.01.1994 after payment of balance amount of Rs.5000/-. Subsequently on 10.01.1994, the defendant refused to execute the sale deed despite request was made and eventually the suit was filed.

(3.) The defendant appellant denied the averments of plaint allegations. It is stated that he had not entered into any agreement and the averments of agreement would show that the entire sale consideration was paid except Rs.5000/- which is unbelievable. The defendant further stated that they were carrying partnership business as being related to each other and in course of such business, certain stamp papers were got signed by the plaintiff which was used to show the agreement. It was stated that since the plaintiffs and defendants were carrying on partnership, after dissolution of Firm, certain amounts was also paid by the defendant to liquidate the outstanding loan which was owed to the plaintiff. Under the circumstances, it would show that the agreement dated 18.02.1993 was completely bogus. The defendant further stated that since the signatures were obtained on the blank stamp paper as such the agreement cannot be acted upon for specific performance of the same.