SALIM AHMAD Vs. QUDRAT ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Muralidhar, Senior advocate, assisted by Sri R. P. Singh and Sri K. P. Upadhyay, learned Counsels for the plaintiff-appellants and Sri B. D. Mandhyan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri s. C. Mandhyan Advocate for the defendant-respondents.

(2.) THE suit was instituted by the plaintiff-appellants for specific performance. The admitted facts giving rise to the dispute is that a registered agreement for sale for an area 1. 39 acres of land was entered into between the defendants i. e. Quadri AH and Mohd. Navi sons of Abdul Rahim (defendant Nos. 1 and 2) of plot No. 505 village Bhatpura Taran for a consideration of rs. 45000/ -. Rs. 30,000/- is said to have been received before preparation of the agreement "baqabal Tahrir Dastavez Haza" and the sale deed was stipulated to be executed and registered by 30. 6. 1991 on receipt of balance money of rs. 15,000/ -. The agreement is purported to be scribed on a printed format on payment of Rs. 10/- stamp duty purchased on 19. 1. 1989 in the name of all four parties. It was presented for registration by Qudrat Ali on 25. 1. 1989 between 11. 00 A. M. and 12. 00 Noon. It was admitted that the vendors were identified by Zahor Ahmad and Nazaqat Ali of the said village. However, the document was registered on 25. 2. 1989 at serial No. 266, Book No. 1 Vol. 338/337 page 3/53 to 56. The aforesaid agreement was duly signed by Sub-Registrar Malkhan singh but the date mentioned below the signatures of the Sub-registrar depicting his endorsement is shown to be 25. 2. 1989. The assertion of the plaintiff-appellants is that they appeared before the Registrar office for execution of the sale deed on 29. 6. 1991. The vendors failed to appear on 29. 6. 1991 and the next day i. e. 30. 6. 1991 was Sunday. Again on 1. 7. 1991 the vendors failed to execute the sale deed though the appellants waited for a long time in the office of Sub-Registrar. On 1. 7. 1991 the sale deed was executed in favour of a third party Smt. Rahat Jan, defendant No. 3. Thereafter a suit for specific performance was instituted on or about 16. 7. 1991. A sale deed was executed by Rahat Jan on 2. 11. 1994 in favour of Ishaq Ali for a consideration of rs. 75,000/- despite an injunction was granted in favour of the appellants restraining the vendors as well as Rahat Jan to transfer the land in question to any third person during pendency of the suit. The defendants disputed the plaint case and filed written statement stating therein that in fact there was no agreement to sell. The case set up was that Rs. 15,000/- was taken as loan and an agreement to sale was executed in place of mortgage deed only to save the stamp duty. It was always agreed between the parties that the loan amount will be cleared by 30. 6. 1991 though the amount was paid after 12. 7. 1991 but the plaintiffs instituted the suit. Alternatively the plea was that the plaintiffs were never ready to fulfil their part of the agreement and also that the registration was invalid. The deed of agreement could not be given any legal sanctity and, therefore, no legal claim of the plaintiffs arises. The Trial court decreed the suit but the appeal was allowed and the Lower Appellate court reserved the finding of the Trial Court.

(3.) THE appeal was admitted on 19. 9. 2007 on single substantial question of law:-"whether the finding of the Lower Appellate Court after reversing the Trial Court finding and holding that the agreement dated 25. 1. 1989 had not been proved to be genuine and the payment of sale consideration of rs. 30,000/- had also not been proved, is perverse, illegal and vitiated by ignoring crucial features in evidence as detailed in the memo of appeal. "