RAMJI Vs. CHOKAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed a suit for a specific performance of a contract for sale dated 17-12-1976 and for cancellation of the sale deed dated 13-5-1980 executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 to 5. The defendant No. 2 and 3 are the son-in-law of defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 4 and 5 are the brothers of the defendant No. 3. It was alleged that the defendant No. 1 is the uncle of the plaintiff and that he had expressed a desire to sell the land for Rs. 15,000/- to the plaintiff. An agreement to sell dated 17-12-1976 was entered between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and, in consideration of the aforesaid agreement, a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant No. 1 by way of an advance and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed. In the agreement, it was stated that the sale deed was to be executed within a period of 5 years. The plaintiff alleged that he was always ready and willing to execute the sale deed and also had the requisite money to pay the balance amount, but the defendant No. 1 for one reason or the other was resiling from the contract and eventually, the defendant No. 1 executed a sale deed dated 13-5-1980 in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 5 for Rs. 31,000.00 in order to defeat the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the sale deed is a void document and that no consideration was paid by the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 to Defendant No. 1.

(2.) The defendant No. 1 filed his written statement and denied the plaint allegations and contended that he had never executed any agreement nor had he received Rs. 10,000.00 by way of an advance. The defendant No. 1 admitted that he had executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 to 5. The defendant Nos. 2 to 5 also filed their written statement and contended that they are bona fide purchasers for value and had no notice of any agreement entered between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1.

(3.) The trial Court after framing the issues and on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The trial Court held that the agreement for sale was duly executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and that the agreement had been duly proved by one Sri RadhaKrishan, PW-4, who was a witness to the said agreement. The trial Court further relied upon the evidence of Ram Jatan, PW-2, who stated that the agreement was executed in front of him and that the contents were read out to the defendant No. 1 and that the defendant had placed the thumb impression after the contents were read out. The said witness also stated that the defendant No.1 received Rs. 10,000.00 in his presence. The trial Court further found that the defendant No. 1 himself admitted in his deposition that he had executed an agreement. The trial Court further found that the thumb impression in the agreement to sell was that of the defendant No. 1 and that due consideration was paid to the defendant No. 1. The trial Court further found that the defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are not bona fide purchasers and had notice of the agreement to sell, inasmuch as, the said defendants were present when the agreement was executed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. The trial Court also found that the defendant No. 1 was in debt and required money to repay his debts.