SABITRI MISHRA Vs. PURNA CHANDRA MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in C.S. No.450 of 2002.

(2.) APPELLANT , as plaintiff, filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction against the present respondent. The case of the plaintiff in essence, is that the defendant is the owner of the property described in Schedule 'A of the plaint and he entered into an agreement with her (plaintiff) for sale of that property as he was in dire need of money for the treatment of his wife, who was suffering from cancer. The plaintiff pleaded that in that negotiation the sale price of the suit property was fixed at Rs. 6 lakhs out of which the defendant received an advance consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs on 15.1.2000. Agreeing that he would execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within a period of two years after receiving the remaining consideration money of Rs.2 lakhs. The plaintiff claims that in support of this agreement and transaction, the agreement was made and for advance amount of Rs.4 lakhs, money receipt was also given by the defendant. According to the plaintiff after this agreement, he remained in possession of the suit property and waited for two years. But the defendant did not execute the registered sale deed although she was all along ready to pay the remaining consideration to him. The plaintiff alleged that after passing of these two years, he approached the defendant for execution of the registered sale deed, but the defendant avoided to execute the sale deed and threatened to dispossess her from the suit property forcibly through antisocial elements, as a result of which she had to send a lawyers notice on 9.5.2002 asking the defendant to receive the balance consideration money and execute the registered sale deed in her favour within one month of receipt of the notice. Since the defendant did not oblige and went on threatening to dispossess her from the suit property, finding no other way, she filed the suit for specific performance of contract.

(3.) PLAINTIFF examined seven witnesses and produced documents, which were marked as Exts. 1 to 5. Defendant also examined four witnesses and relied on documents, which were marked as Exts. A to N. On consideration of these evidence the trial Court came to the conclusion that the agreement and the money receipt are forged documents, that there as no agreement between the plaintiff and defendant for sale of the suit house, that the mandatory provision of Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act was not complied with by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief of specific performance of contract or injunction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the suit. Challenging that judgment and decree, the plaintiff has filed this appeal.