GAYA PRASAD Vs. BANMALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment-decree dated 8-8-90, passed by II Addi-tional District Judge, Damoh in C. A. No. 1-A/88, reversing the judgment-decree dated 7-9-87, passed by 5 Civil Judge Class II, Damoh in C. S. No. 15-A/86, defendant/appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 100, CPC.

(2.) THE appeal has been heard on the following substantial questions of law:-

(3.) APPELLANTS are legal representatives of original defendant Late gayaprasad. Plaintiff/respondent instituted C. S. No. 15-A/86 before the Civil judge for specific performance of contract of sale of suit land Khasra No. 25/2, area 1. 667 hectare, Tehsil Damon on the ground that original defendant Late gayaprasad on 15-4-80 agreed to sell the suit land for Rs. 3,000/ -. Having accepted part payment of Rs. 2,100/- executed the agreement (Exhibit P-1)agreeing to execute the registered sale deed on receipt of balance sum of Rs. 900/ -. Original defendant Late Gayaprasad subsequently resiled from the promise. The suit was resisted on the ground that Karan Singh, father-in-law of plaintiff/respondent is notorious person of a criminal record. Karan Singh was related to the then Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat. To avoid any adverse comment against his relative, Karan Singh obtained a contract in the name of defendant Late Gayaprasad for construction of school building. The amount and grain in connection with said contract was received by Karan Singh on the basis of signature of defendant Late Gayaprasad on blank papers, on which karan Singh used to scribe receipt at the time of receiving payment either in cash or in the shape of grain. Karan Singh since had earned profit in the said contract, defendant Late Gayaprasad asked him some money out of profit as the contract was taken in his name. On such a demand, Karan Singh became annoyed and got fabricated the alleged agreement dated 15- 4-80 (Exhibit P-l)on one of the blank papers signed by defendant Late Gayaprasad. On the basis plaintiff/respondent in collusion with his father-in-law Karan Singh, who is a habitual litigant and party in several civil and criminal cases falsely instituted the suit for specific performance of contract. Defendant Late Gayaprasad in fact purchased the suit land vide registered sale deeds dated 16-5-67 and 17-10-69 for total sum of Rs. 4,500/ -. Suit land for sale in any case on 15-4-80 could not have been offered for Rs. 3,000/- only. The Civil Judge in C. S. No. 15-A/86 vide judgment dated 7-9-87 held that the alleged agreement dated 15-4-80 (Ex. P-l) is forged one. Karan singh father-in-law of plaintiff/respondent using the paper said to have been signed by defendant - Late Gayaprasad in relation to receive payment of contract of construction of school, got executed as an agreement to sell the suit land. On the basis aforesaid; plaintiff/respondent falsely instituted the suit for specific performance of contract. Therefore, directing the defendant/respondent to pay compensatory cost, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, plaintiff/respondent preferred C. A. No. 1- A/88 before II ADJ, Damoh. The Court below accepting the contention that defendant Late Gayaprasad agreed to sell the suit land vide agreement dated 15-4-80 (Exhibit P-l) set aside the judgment-decree passed by Civil Judge in C. S. No. 15-A/86, instead decreed the suit for specific performance directing defendant Late Gayaprasad to execute registered sale deed of suit land in favour of plaintiff/respondent. Being aggrieved, defendant late Gayaprasad preferred this appeal under Section 100, CPC. Defendant late Gayaprasad since died, appellants being L. Rs. have been brought on record.