PREM Vs. SMT. SHAKUNTALA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage. This is defendant's second appeal arising out of Original suit no.19 of 2000 instituted by plaintiff -respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 was defendant no.2 in the suit. The relief claimed in the suit was for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 13.2.1998 registered on 23.2.1998 alleged by the plaintiff to have been executed by appellant -defendant no.1 -Prem. During pendency of suit property in dispute was sold by appellant -defendant no.1 to Babu Ram, respondent no.2 on 16.05.2001. Accordingly, Babu Ram was also impleaded in the suit. Total area of the property in dispute which is in the form of a plot is 25 sq. yard. Agreed sale consideration shown in the agreement was Rs.35,000/ -. It was further shown in the agreement that Rs.28,000/ -had been paid as earnest money. As the agreement was registered hence defendant no.2 was fully aware of the same. He also admitted the said fact but stated that defendant no.1 told him that the agreement was forged.

(2.) CIVIL Judge(Senior Division), Kairana, Muzaffar Nagar through judgment and decree dated 17.9.2007 decreed the suit for specific performance of the agreement. It found the agreement to have been executed by defendant no.1. It is mentioned in the judgment of the trial court that defendant no.1 -Prem himself filed photostat copy of an agreement dated 13.2.1998 as paper no. 60 Ga and in his oral statement he did not admit that to be correct. He further stated that the said paper had been given to him by Shri Nathi (one of the witnesses of the agreement). He admitted his photo on the said document. He further stated that he did not inquire from Shri Nathi about the original of which paper no. 60 Ga was a copy.