RAFEEQUE AHEMAD ANSARI Vs. ATMARAM MANDHORIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff (present respondent no.-1) had filed original suit no.-102 of 1998, Dr. Atma Ram Madhoriya Vs. Smt. Sahida @ Saeeda Begum and others, for specific performance of contract of sale of disputed property executed between defendant no.-1 and plaintiff. In the suit, this relief was also sought that decree of original suit no. 2 of 1998, Rafiq Ahemad Ansari Vs. Saeeda Begum, has no binding effect on plaintiff.

(2.) Facts of the original suit were that defendnat no.-1 had entered into a registered agreement to sell the disputed property to plaintiff for consideration of Rs. one lacs and recedived Rs. 35,000/- as advance money from him. Plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and even gave the legal notice through counsel to defendant no.-1 for executing sale deed but defendant no.-1 had not executed the sale deed. In meantime, an original suit no. 2/1998, Rafiq Ahemad Vs. Saiyada Begum, was filed on 2.1.1998 for declaring the ownership of disputed property on the ground that the predecessor in interest of Saeeda Begum had orally gifted the disputed property to plaintiff of that suit namely, Rafiq Ahemad. Defendant Saeeda Begum appeared in said case on 12.1.1998, filed the written statement same day, same day issued were framed and same plaintiffs witnesses PW-1 Rafiq Ahemad and PW-2 Nafees Ahemad were examined, and also defendant witness DW-1 Saeeda Begum was also examined. In her statement, DW-1 Saeeda Begum had admitted the alleged oral gift of disputed property by her father in favour of Rafiq Ahemad. Then trial court had passed the judgment in said suit on same day, i.e. on 12.01.1998, and decreed the suit and declared the Rafiq Ahemad as owner in possession of disputed property. After knowledge of these facts, plaintiffs had filed original suit no. 38/2014 for specific performance of his contract in his favour as well as for declaration as above.

(3.) The defendant no.-1 Sayeeda Begum had filed written statement in original suit and accepted the execution of deed of registered agreement to sell dated 17.11.1997 but stated that she had executed said deed for mortgaging her property and not for agreeing to sell the same. In original suit the defendant no. 2 Rafiq Ahemad (present appellant and plaintiff of original suit no. 2/1998) had filed the w.s. and pleaded that the original owner of disputed property had orally gifted it in his favour, therefore, suit of plaintiff should be dismissed. Other defendants had also filed written statements.