SHEO MURAT Vs. RAM MURAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant - Sheo Murat for rectification of the sale-deed under Section 26 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963.

(2.) The brief facts are that the appellant Sheo Murat filed Original Suit No. 250/1978 in the Court of Munsif, Azamgarh for the rectification of the aforesaid sale-deed executed by the defendant late Shital Dan in favour of the respondent defendant Ram Murat in respect of his agricultural property. The plaintiff Sheo Murat and the defendant No. 1 are the real brothers and the defendant late Shital Dan was their real uncle. The appellant claimed rectification of the sale-deed executed by his uncle on the ground that earlier to the execution of the aforesaid sale-deed, he had executed an agreement of sale dated 8-11-1975 in respect of the same property in favour of these two brothers (plaintiff and defendant No. 1). He agreed for transfer of the said property for a total consideration of Rs. 12,000/- out of which he received Rs.8,000/- by half and half from both the brothers as earnest money. He also agreed that after his coming back from religious pilgrimage, he would execute the sale-deed on receiving the remaining sale consideration of Rs.4,000/- from the plaintiff and defendant No.1. On his coming back late Shital Dan, after receiving the remaining sale consideration of Rs.4.000/- for which the half contribution was done by the plaintiff, executed the sale- deed but instead it being a sale-deed in favour of both the brothers, it was executed only in favour of the defendant No.1 Ram Murat. On coming back after execution of the sale-deed, it was reported to the plaintiff by the defendants that the sale-deed was executed in favour of both the brothers i.e. plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. But later on, the plaintiff came to know that by practising fraud and mis-representation, the defendant No.1, Ram Murat got the sale-deed executed only in his favour which was later on confirmed by inspection of the record in the Office of Sub-Registrar. The defendant No. 1 - Ram Murat also accepted his mistake in getting the sale-deed executed solely in his name.

(3.) The defendant No. 1 - Ram Murat contested the suit and filed a written statement disputing the execution of agreement of sale dated 8-11-1975. He also pleaded that the agreement is forged and antedated and late Shital Dan as vendor had settled the deal of sale of his disputed property with him only and in pursuance thereto he executed the sale-deed in question. There was no occasion for late Shital Dan to execute the sale- deed of half of his property in favour of the plaintiff Sheo Murat. He further pleaded that late Shital Dan in connivance with the plaintiff, after execution of the sale-deed, had executed the agreement by antedating it. The entire sale consideration was paid by him and no portion of it was paid by the plaintiff. The contesting defendant also pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled for rectification of the sale-deed.