JAGDISH CHANDRA Vs. RAMSAHAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before this Court has filed this present second appeal arising out the judgment and decree dated 9.2.12 passed in Civil Regular Appeal No.1 -A/09 by the learned Additional District Judge, Khachrod District Ujjain. The 1st appellate court has affirmed the findings arrived at by the trial Court in Civil Suit No. 11 -A/06 by the learned Civil Judge Class -I dated 29.11.2008.

(2.) The facts of the case reveal that the plaintiff namely Jagdish Chandra and Mohan Lal, who were the owners of the house situated at Vadipura, Ajadpura, Birlagram, Nagda filed a suit for specific performance of contract. The facts further reveal that the suit property was sold by a registered sale deed dated 18.1.94 in favour of Ramsahay. It was stated in the plaint that on the same day i.e. 18.1.94 an agreement of sale was also executed between the parties, wherein it was agreed upon that the same house in question, after 9 years will be sold back to Jagdish Chandra and Mohan Lal (plaintiffs). The civil suit was preferred on the strength of agreement of sale dated 18.1.94. It is pertinent to note that the suit premises was sold later on by Ramsahay on 9.5.2000 by a registered sale deed in favour of one Subhash Chandra. The trial Court has framed various issues and the issue No.1 is in respect of sale deed dated 18.1.94 and it has been held that the house in question was sold by a registered sale deed dated 18.1.94 in favour Ramsahay (defendant No. 1). In respect of the subsequent agreement, which is also dated 18.1.94 (agreement of sale), issues were framed and the trial Court has arrived at a conclusion, based upon the evidence on record that the document dated 18.1.94 is a forged and fabricated document.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court towards the so called statement made by Ramsahay and his contention is that the property was sold to one Subhash Chandra on 9.5.2000 and thereafter so called statement has been made on 14.12.2001. Not only this, the trial Court after taking into account the statement of other witnesses and after taking into account the so called agreement has arrived at a conclusion that the agreement on the basis of which, the suit for specific performance of contract was filed itself is a forged and fabricated document and based upon the findings of fact, the suit has been dismissed. The findings of fact arrived at by the trial Court has been affirmed by the first appellate Court.