RAM KISHORE DWIVEDI Vs. RAM MANOHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's appeal. It arises out of original suit No. 44 of 1983 instituted for the specific performance of an agreement dated 21st February, 1976 with respect to the properties described in Schedule Ka -4 of the plaint for a sum of Rs. 20,000. The said agreement was executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff -appellant.

(2.) THE suit was instituted on the pleas inter alia that the defendant No. 1 Ram Manohar is the sole tenant of the land given in Schedule K -1 and has a half share in the property given in Schedule K -2 and 1/4th share in Schedule K -3 as Bhumidhar. On 21 -2 -76 the defendant No. 1 executed an agreement to sell all his plots and share in the land described in the aforesaid schedule for the sum of Rs. 20,000 out of which Rs. 18,000 was paid as earnest money in the presence of the witnesses and was immediately put in possession over the land. It was further agreed that a sale deed shall be executed by the defendant No. 1 on or before 31st March, 1983 and at the time of execution of the sale deed the balance Rs. 2,000 shall be paid to him. The village was under consolidation operation at the time of execution of the agreement; it was agreed by the defendant No. 1 that he would transfer the pots allotted to him during the consolidation operation in lieu of his old plots. The defendant No. 1 has failed to execute sale -deed in pursuance of the agreement in question, the necessity to file present suit arose.

(3.) THE main defendant of defendant No. 1 was of total denial of the agreement in question. He pleaded that he did not execute any agreement dated 21 -2 -76 or on any other date in favour of the plaintiff. In para 21 of the written statement it was stated that the plaintiff is the younger brother of the defendant No. 1 and plaintiff was doing pairvi on his behalf before the Consolidation Court and in that connection the defendant No. 1 used to sign blank Vakalatnamas and blank papers. It is quite possible that the plaintiff having obtained his signatures has manufactured or prepared some fabricated agreement of sale. The allegation that he did receive any consideration was also denied. He claimed his possession as Bhumidhar of the disputed plot and denied the plaintiff's allegation regarding delivery of possession to him. In para 25 of the written statement it has been further pleaded that on 10th of August 1983 he has executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2, Jag Mohan, for a sum of Rs. 30,000 and the possession has also been delivered to him. The plaintiff had full knowledge about the said transaction.