NATHU RAM Vs. SATYA NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present second appeal has been preferred impugning the Judgment and decree dated 13.4.1990, passed by lower appellate court in Civil Appeal No. 57 of 1989 dismissing suit whereby the finding of the trial courtmandating to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff within the time-lag as embodied in the agreement dated 26.6.1976 was reversed and Judgment and decree passed by the trial court in Suit No. 57 of 1989 was set aside.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case as contained in the plaint is that the defendant was the owner of the shop in question situated in the town of Phaphund and according to the plaint allegations, the defendant earlier being the owner of shop, wanted to sell the said shop and with that object, entered into agreement with the plaintiff vide unregistered agreement dated 26.6.1976 subject to the postulates that the sale deed would be executed on a consideration of Rs. 15,000 ; that at the time of execution of agreement, a sum of Rs. 2,000 would be payable to the defendant and further a sum of Rs. 11,000 would be payable to the defendant by the plaintiff at the time when the defendant would deliver vacant possession of the shop in question and further that the rent of the shop would not be payable from the date of agreement and the defendant would cease to be the owner of the shop from the date of agreement. It is further alleged that the plaintiff, according to the conditions in the agreement, became owner of the shop with effect from 15.3.1978 and he had also paid a sum of Rs. 2,000 to the defendant as agreed between them. It is also alleged that thereafter the defendant evaded execution of sale deed and hence, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the suit in question. In the written statement, the defendant denied the allegations averring that the plaintiff had prepared a fake agreement ; that no such agreement was entered into between the parties ; that the alleged receipt does not bear his signatures and has been forged and that the plaintiff was a tenant of the shop on a rent of Rs. 30 per month against whom he had filed a suit for the relief of eviction and arrears of rent.

(3.) The trial court framed as many as seven issues and upon appreciation of evidence of four witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff namely. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 came to the conclusion that the agreement was entered into between the parties and defendant had accepted earnest money and in the ultimate analysis mandated the defendant to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant examined himself as D.W. 1 and also one Mool Chand as D.W. 2. The defendant also examined one Rajendra Prasad D.W. 3 as Finger Expert in support of his case. In Civil Appeal No. 57 of 1989. the learned District Judge reversed the finding recorded by the trial court holding therein that the agreement was forged one and while disbelieving the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, it was held that the witnesses perjured themselves and directed prosecution against the witnesses for giving false leads in the case before the Court.