HAREKRUSHNA SAHOO Vs. KSHETRA BARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant. He sold the disputed land to the defendant on 14-81956 for Rs. 300/- by a registered sale deed Ex. A. On the very day, the defendant executed a unregistered agreement for sale (Ex. 1) stipulating to reconvey the same property to the plaintiff on receipt of Rs. 300/- within three years from that date. During the stipulated period, the plaintiff offered the money personally to the defendant and also remitted the money by money-order, but the defendant refused to accept the money. The suit is for specific performance of the agreement Ex. 1.

(2.) THE defendant alleged that Ex. 1 was not genuine. His case is that at the time of the sale there was paddy crop on the suit land. As the crop had been grown by the plaintiff, there was an agreement that it would be divided half and half between them. By way of security the plaintiff procured a blank sheet of stamp paper containing defendant's signature. The defendant pleads that possibly the plaintiff had utilised that paper as the agreement (Ex. 1 ).

(3.) BOTH the Courts below concurrently rejected the defence version of story and held that Ex. 1 was genuine and duly executed by the defendant. They, however, dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the finding that Ex. I was compulsorily registrable and in the absence of registration, it cannot constitute the basis of the suit. The second appeal has been filed against the appellate decree dismissing the plaintiffs suit.