RAJPUTI DEVI Vs. RAM SEWAK SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant appellant has preferred this review petition in which is impugned the judgment of this Court dated 28-12-2004 rendered by Hon. B. K. Rathi, J. whereby second appeal was dismissed holding that no substantial question of law arose for decision,

(2.) Initially, a preliminary objection was brought to bear assailing the jurisdiction of this Court which was a Court presided over by a Judge other than the Judge who decided the second appeal and therefore, arguments were heard and the preliminary objection was disposed of by means of order dated 31-3-2005 in which plea was upheld that review was maintainable. The case was set down for hearing on merit on sustairiability of review petition on grounds as envisaged in Order 47, Rule 1 C. P. C. for today. It is today that the matter has been heard on merit at prolix length.

(3.) A brief resume of necessary facts is essential for proper appreciation of the dispute involved in this case. It would appear that a suit was instituted by the plaintiff appellant for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sale attended with further relief to deliver possession of the property in question. The plaintiff set up a case that defendant Ram Prasad had executed an agreement in favour of plaintiff Jagjit Singh on 3-8-1975 for sale of property in question agreeing to a consideration of Rs.40,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.30,000/- was accepted by the defendant No. 1 and the balance was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. It is alleged that plaintiff was delivered possession of the property in question after receipt of Rs.30,000/-. It is further alleged that the defendant No. 1 dodged the issue of execution of sale deed and subsequently, executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. As a result, the deceased plaintiff Jagit singh served a registered notice and when it elicited no response, he instituted the suit aforestated. The defendants filed a joint written statement repudiating the plaint allegations and denying execution of agreement to sale as well as receipt of consideration. It was pleaded by them that the document was forged and unenforceable in law and it was also refuted that it bore signatures of defendant No.1.