SITA RAM Vs. SURJI ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10th March, 1972 of Sub-Judge 1st Class, Karnal, dismissing with costs his suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of land on the finding that the written agreement, Exhibit P.1, relied upon by the appellant was a forgery. The finding is based on circumstantial evidence of such a conclusive character that it may appear unnecessary to go into the details of the lengthy oral evidence which has been examined by the parties in the trial Court.

(2.) Shrimati Surji, defendant-respondent No. 1, had become the owner of the land in dispute by virtue of a pre-emption decree. The pre-emption amount Rs. 14,450/- was deposited in Court in two instalments of Rs. 2,800/- (zare panjam) on 27th September, 1959 and Rs. 11,650/- on 1st June, 1960. It was the appellant's case that he had deposited the amounts on both the occasions in the Treasury though the amounts are said to have been advanced as loans by the appellant to Shrimati Surji.

(3.) Shrimati Surji is then alleged to have agreed to sell this land to the appellant by an agreement, Exhibit P.1, dated 29th May, 1960 for a sum of Rs. 16,000/-. The document recites that the amount of Rs. 1550/- had been paid to her some time before the execution of the document, Exhibit P.1. In part performance of the agreement, the appellant had gone into possession of the land. It was agreed that the sale deed was to be executed by the respondent on the attestation of the order of mutation in favour of Shrimati Surji. In view of the pre-emption decree granted in her favour by a Court the attestation of a mutation order need not have delayed the execution and registration of the sale deed when the entire sale consideration was described to have been paid to the vendor. The present suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale had, however, been filed very nearly seven years after the date that the agreement bears and it may appear that in he meanwhile there had been a good deal of civil and criminal litigation and security proceedings between the parties. Defendant-respondent Nos. 2 to 6 were impleaded by the appellant as defendants in the civil suit as they were described to be negotiating a purchase of the land from Shrimati Surji.