ANANTA PRASAD SAHU Vs. GOPAL SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular first appeal is by the defendant against the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, Hailakandi in T.S. No. 21/2013, whereby the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of contract was decreed.

(2.) The respondent herein, as plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract for sale, possession and permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant and plaintiff were cousin by relation. Defendant, who was in need of money for his business of wine shop, intended to sell the suit land described in the schedule of the plaint at a consideration amount of Rs. 12 lakhs. Accordingly, a deed was executed by the defendant for selling the suit land for consideration of Rs. 12 lakhs, out of which, Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid on 29-07-12, when the deed of agreement was executed between the parties and balance amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- was paid on the next day. It was agreed by the defendant, that registered sale deed shall be executed after obtaining necessary permission from the district authority. Accordingly, permission was obtained on 13-08-12 for selling the land in favour of the plaintiff. Upon issuance of the permission on 13-08-12 by the Deputy Commissioner, the plaintiff purchased the necessary stamp papers and requested the defendant to execute the sale deed. However, the defendant did not execute the sale deed and ignored the request of the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued a notice on 21-09-2013 demanding the defendant to execute the registered sale deed, which was denied by the defendant. Hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) Defendant in his written statement took the plea that the suit land was joint property, for the enjoyment of all the co-sharers. It was also stated in the written statement, that the defendant did not execute the "saralipi" (agreement) or the application for NOC for transferring the suit land. It was also the pleaded case of the defendant, that signatures in deed of agreement were forged and it was a false and concocted document. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues :