SAUBHAGYA RANJAN KANUNGO Vs. PRAFULATA MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge, Cuttack in R.F.A. No.58 of 2003 reversing the judgment and decree of learned 2nd Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Cuttack in Title Suit No. 442 of 1994.

(2.) THE respondent as plaintiff filed the above noted suit pleading, inter alia, that the appellant defendant being in need of money approached her for sale of Schedule 'A land for a consideration of Rs.60,000/ - and on acceptance of the proposal a contract for sale was entered into with the stipulation that the appellant would receive Rs.30,000/ - as advance, obtain permission from the urban land ceiling authority for sale of the land and execute a registered sale deed in favour of the respondent after receiving the balance consideration of Rs.30,000/ - and the cost of stamp duty, registration fee etc. It was alleged that the appellant received the advance amount but thereafter despite the respondents willingness to perform her part of the contract failed to obtain the permission and execute the registered sale deed and ultimately denied the contract in his reply to the defendants notice which necessitated filing of the suit for specific performance of the contract. The appellant -defendant in his W.S. denied the existence of the aforesaid contract and pleaded that under force and coercion his signatures were obtained on the document Ext.7/e. On the aforesaid pleadings, learned trial Court framed issues, accepted evidence of the parties and on considering such evidence came to hold that the contract was genuine and valid, but the respondent -plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and therefore, she was not entitled to specific performance of the contract. Accordingly, learned trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff carried appeal. Learned first appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence and taking note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties held that the document Ext.7/e was not executed under fraud or coercion, that it is a genuine and valid document despite the absence of the signature of the plaintiff -respondent on it, that the respondent was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. Consequently, he allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree and directed the defendant -appellant to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the respondent -plaintiff after receiving the balance consideration of Rs.30,000/ -. He also ordered that in case the appellant -defendant would be reluctant to execute the registered sale deed then the respondent would be at liberty to get it executed and registered through Court. The legality of the said judgment and decree of the learned first appellate Court is under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) MR . Sk. Aziz, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that to constitute a valid contract there should be an offer by one party and acceptance by the other party for performance of a lawful transaction. He submits that a contract cannot be constituted unilaterally by one party and for that reason Ext.7/e cannot be accepted as a valid and executable contract for the reason that the same is not signed by the respondent -plaintiff. In support of this contention he relied on the cases of B. Rajamani v. Mrs. Azhar Sultana and others, 2005(2) C.C.C. 696 (A.P.); S.M. Gopal Chetty v. Raman alias Natesan and 7 others, AIR 1998 Madras 169; Sri Sri Narayan gosain represented by Prafulla Kumar Nayak and others v. The Collector, Cuttack and others, 60 (1985) CLT 514; M/s. Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. v. M/s. K.C.S. Private Ltd., 2003 (Supp.) OLR 675 and Tarsem Singh v. Sukhminder Singh, AIR 1998 S.C. 1400.