OM PRAKASH GUPTA Vs. HARCHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS first appeal has been filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 8.4.2005 passed in Civil Suit No.6-A/2003 by learned 8th Additional district Judge, Gwalior, M.P. whereby suit filed for specific performance of contract has been dismissed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that respondent/defendant no.1 entered into an agreement for sale in the year 1995 with the plaintiffs/appellants in respect of land bearing Survey No.972/3-4, 732/6, 796/4 total area 17 Bighas of village Mahalgaon, district Gwalior, M.P. Since in the revenue papers, name of defendant was not reflected and due to lapse of time cost of the land was also increased, therefore, another agreement was executed on 15.01.1989 for which Shanti Bai, W/o Mahendra Pal son of defendant no.1 also gave consent. The sale consideration was Rs.2/- per square ft. and advance of Rs.2,000/- was received by defendant no.1 and balance was to be paid at the time of registry. After completion of mutation proceedings, the defendant no.1 has to execute sale deed infavour of the plaintiffs or to persons inducted by them within three months. It is aggrieved between the parties along with other conditions that if the land is acquired for Government purpose, the plaintiffs will also become party and to get compensation and if the compensation is more than Rs.2/- per square ft., the defendant no.1 will get two bighas of land out of Survey No.732 for himself. Out of land under the agreement, 12 bighas of land were acquired by the Government in furtherance of order passed in Writ Petition No.704/98 vide dated 19.05.1990. Therefore, under the changed circumstances, plaintiffs were entitled to get only remaining 5 bighas of land from Survey No.972/3-4.

(3.) LEARNED trial Court by impugned judgment and decree dismissed the suit by holding that the agreement dated 15.01.1989, Exhibit P-1 executed infavour of the plaintiff is a forged document. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, appellants have filed this appeal on the ground that the finding of the learned trial Court is perverse. Learned trial Court has given its finding without considering the facts and documents available on record.