HANSA DEVI SAHU Vs. BACHCHALAL JAISINGHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 15-3-1997 by District Judge, Shahdol in Civil Suit No. 38-A/1993 whereby the application (Annexure A/5) under Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 8 Rule 9 C. P. C. by defendant No. 1/ non-applicant No. 2 herein, Jitendra Kumar, was allowed and he was permitted to file additional written statement.

(2.) FACTS leading to the present revision petition are : Undisputably, the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement allegedly entered into between him and deceased defendant Smt. Gyani Bai. The plaint is 'annexure-A/2'. It was averred therein by the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 that there was an oral agreement between him and deceased defendant Gyanibai, whereby the latter agreed to sell the suit-house to him. Subsequently, on 10-8-1993, the agreement as above was reduced into writing in which the present defendant/non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar also appended his signature, as attesting witness. It was also alleged that the sale-deed was to be executed after obtaining permission from the Collector, Shahdol, as per requirement of the amended Section 165 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. It was further averred that subsequently, defendants 1 and 2, despite protests by plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1 executed a registered sale-deed dated 8-10-1993 in favour of defendant/petitioner Hansa Devi. An application for temporary injunction was also filed praying that the defendants be restrained from carrying out any construction over the disputed property till the disposal of the suit.

(3.) DECEASED defendant Gyani Bai and her son Jitendra Kumar/non-applicant No. 2, who were initially arrayed as defendants 1 and 2 in the suit, filed a joint written-statement (Annexure-A/3 ). They denied that there was any agreement-oral or in writing, as alleged by the plaintiff Bachchalal. It was further alleged that neither the deceased defendant Gyani Bai nor present non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar put their signatures on the alleged agreement dated 10-8-1993, as set-up by the plaintiff/non-applicant No. 1. It was also alleged that the said document was forged by the plaintiff/ non-applicant No. 1 in order to force the deceased defendant Gyani Bai and defendant non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar to sell away the suit-property to him. The averments regarding the agreement of sale set-up by the plaintiff were denied raising several grounds of challenge, as would be clear from para-28 of the joint written-statement (Annexure-A/3) of deceased defendant Gyani Bai and defendant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar. The written-statement (Annex. A/3) was verified by deceased defendant Gyani Bai as well as defendant/non-applicant No. 2 Jitendra Kumar.