SIRMUL Vs. ANNAPURNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff/appellant's suit for specific performance of contract of sale dt. 4-1-92 has been dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the execution of agreement has not been proved. The suit was dismissed with cost. It was held that while getting two sale-deeds executed on 4-1-92 on the stamp in question signature of defendant Annapurna Devi was obtained and subsequently the agreement has been typed over it. Aggrieved by dismissal of the suit, present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the defendant agreed to sell agricultural land of one acre comprised in Survey No. 852/1 on4-1-92 for a consideration of Rs. 2,30,000/-. An amount of Rs. 80,000/- was paid on 4-1-92 as earnest money and the sale deed was to be executed by 10th April 1992, on receiving a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-, the remaining amount was agreed to be paid before the registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed. The plaintiff requested the defendant to receive the balance of consideration, but, she delayed the execution of the sale deed. Ultimately, registered notice dt. 8-4-1992 was served, by registered post to execute the sale deed by 10th April 1992. Telegraphic notice was also sent. Newspaper publication was also made in Dainik Lokswar dt. 10-4-92, but, in spite of publication and the notice the defendant did not execute the sale deed. In paragraph 6 of the plaint it was submitted that the plaintiff was ready to get the sale deed registered on payment of the balance of consideration. However, in para 8 of the plaint, it was mentioned that the plaintiff was not having the money arrangement with respect to Court-fees of Rs. 15,530/-. Hence, the suit was being filed on stamp of Rs. 10/- and remaining Court-fees shall be paid within two months. The suit was filed on 9-5-92. On 21-12-1992 the plaintiff further amended the plaint in order to plead that the plaintiff was involved in sale and purchase of the land and the agreement was executed in the presence of two witnesses. No fraud has been played by the plaintiff over the defendant. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was ready to pay the balance money.

(3.) In the written statement the defendant contended that no agreement dt. 4-1-92 was ever executed by her. No earnest money of Rs. 80,000/- was received. It was contended that the plaintiff was a land dealer and used to earn money by way of commission in the land deal. The plaintiff had arranged for sale of 4000 sq. ft. of land out of the said very survey Number to one Kaspad Mohri and Jagat Narayan by two different sale deeds, both were executed on 4-1-92. These deeds were finalized through the plaintiff. Documents of sale deeds were got prepared by the plaintiff. Signatures of the defendant were obtained by the plaintiff on the two sale deeds executed in favour of Kaspad Mohri and Jagat Narayan on 4-1-92 at several places. The defendant was educated up to middle class only and was not keeping well. She signed over the stamp paper which was placed before her and paid commission to the plaintiff with respect to the said two sale deeds at the rate of Rs. 2/- per sq. ft. No agreement was ever entered into for the sale. For the first time, on receipt of the notice dt. 8-4-92 the defendant could know that by playing fraud plaintiff has prepared a forged document agreement and has obtained her signatures. No agreement was ever entered into. Immediately on receipt of the notice on coming to know of the fraud, the defendant has lodged report with the police at civil lines police station, Bilaspur against the plaintiff, on which an offence u/Ss. 420, 467 and 468, I.P.C. was registered against the plaintiff. The reply of the notice was also sent. Telegraphic notice dt. 9-4-92 was not received. It was further contended that the land was worth Rs. 14,04,000/-, as out of the said very survey number on 4-1-92 two sale-deeds were executed in favour of Kaspad Mohri and Jagat Narayan at the rate of Rs. 27/- per sq. ft. On both the sale deeds the plaintiff was also an attesting witness. Thus, total 4000 sq. ft. land was sold in the sum of Rs. 1,08,000/-. After the sale in the remaining land there were 26 plots and cost of which is Rs. 14,04,000/- which could not be sold for a sum of Rs. 2,30,000/- as the face value of them was Rs. 14,04,000/- at the rate of Rs. 27/- per sq. ft. Plaintiff has been defrauded as she is a widow and aged woman. The written statement was filed on 29-9-92.