R.K.YADAV Vs. DHARAMRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate enters appearance on behalf of contesting respondent No.3 by filing Memorandum of Appearance.

(2.) The short point involved is that the plaintiff cannot achieve in rebuttal evidence what he could have done while leading evidence in the affirmative. The law on this aspect is long settled.

(3.) The suit was for specific performance of a contract of sale dated 1.4.2014. The plaintiff ["P"] sought possession of suit property claiming a decree of enforcement of contract. He brought a suit arraying as defendants 1 and 2 (Dl and D2) the proposed vendor with whom he struck the deal as well as a subsequent holder of a sale agreement claiming preferential right of specific performance. This meant that plaintiff had knowledge of sale agreement between D-l and D-2. Defendant No.l turned ex-parte as he must have been disinterested in the fate of the suit. D2 filed a written statement contesting the suit by denying execution of the agreement dated 1.4.2018 (between PI and Dl) by taking a specific plea that the alleged agreement does not bear the signatures of Dl Dharam Raj Singh.