GIRDHARI YADAVA Vs. RAM NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal. A suit was filed by the plaintiff for cancellation of a sale deed dated 9th August 1968 executed by him in favour of the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/ -. A sum of Rupees 4,500/- was paid at the time of registration of the sale deed and it was agreed as a term of the deed that the remaining amount of Rs. 5,500/- shall be paid by the defendant by 30th March 1969. In the event of default, the sale deed would be deemed to be cancelled. The allegation of the plaintiff was that the defendant had prepared a forged receipt in token of the payment of the balance consideration of Rupees 5,500/- though in fact no payment had been made to him. It may be noted that the plaint had been amended and along with the relief for cancellation of the sale deed the relief for possession was also added.

(2.) THE defendant contested the suit and pleaded that the remaining sum of Rs. 5,500/- as per direction in the sale deed, had been paid to the plaintiff on 13th November 1968 in the presence of the witnesses. THE defendant also alleged that he has got his name entered over the disputed land as bhumidhar. THE claim of the plaintiff was baseless and the suit was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) COUNSEL for the appellant has submitted that the receipt dated 13-11-1968 was compulsorily registrable under the provisions of S. 17 (1) (c) Registration Act. Since it has not been registered it was inadmissible in evidence and the Court below has erred in law in relying upon it. He has also submitted that oral evidence cannot be led to prove the payment of the balance consideration contained in the sale deed and here again the court below has acted illegally in taking oral evidence into consideration and in holding that the balance amount of Rs. 5,500/- had been paid to the plaintiff.