MAHENDRA KUMAR Vs. AMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28-7-1993 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Begumganj in Civil Suit No. 5-A/88 whereby the suit of specific performance of the contract filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed, the plaintiff has come up in appeal.

(2.) IN brief, the suit of plaintiff is that Late Ram Sharan Singh whose heirs arc the defendants entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on 22-4-1981 to sell the land in question for a consideration of Rs. 42,000/- and obtained Rs. 29,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiff and it was agreed that the balance amount of Rs. 13,000/- shall be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. A document to that effect was also executed. However, before the sale deed could be executed by said Ram Sharan Singh, he passed away after four months from the date of the execution of the said agreement. The plaintiff for several times approached the defendants who arc the heirs of deceased Ram Sharan Singh but they avoided to execute the sale deed and ultimately the plaintiff sent a notice by registered post on 29-7-1982 which was received by the defendants. A reply dated 23-8-1982 was sent by the defendants which was received by the plaintiff on 24-8-1982 but they did not execute the sale deed and hence a suit for specific performance of contract was filed. In the plaint, it has been pleaded that even today the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the balance sale price Rs. 13,000/- and is ready to get the sale deed executed in his favour.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 4, Rajendra Singh, filed the separate written statement and other defendants filed a joint written statement, however, the averments made in the plaint were denied. Though in the written statement filed by defendant No. 4, Rajendra Singh, in the alternative it was pleaded that if it is held that the document of agreement was executed by his father Ram Sharan Singh in favour of plaintiff then the signature of Ram Sharan Singh was obtained under the influence of liquor in the stage of intoxication and, therefore, the said agreement is not having any sanctity in the eye of law. The other defendants in their joint written statement denied the execution of the agreement.