MAHENDER KUMAR Vs. SITA RAM MANDIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is brought at the instance of the defendant who has suffered a decree for specific performance in both the courts below. The plaintiff has filed a suit for enforcement of the agreement of sale said to have been executed on 31.10.2006 undertaking to sell the suit property for Rs.2,60,000.00, having received Rs.50,000.00 as advance and the balance of Rs.2,10,000.00 to be paid at the time of registration on 31.10.2006. The plaintiff's contention was that the party described in the plaint was Shri Sita Ram Mandir through mahant Sitaram Dass and the document had been signed by Shri Sita Ram Mandir through Nanak Chand son of Soni Ram and the defendant had also signed. There were two witnesses and scribed by a counsel at Palwal. The defendant's contention was that it was brought about by coercion and he was not a willing party to the document. The contention was that he had registered the complaint with the police stating that the signature was taken from the defendant at Hasanpur. The complaint was investigated by the police and it was closed as not making out any criminal case as complained upon. The report made reference to a statement alleged to have been given by the defendant at Tehsil Hodal and there was said to be seemingly a contradiction about the place of execution, whether at Hasanpur, where defendant stated that his signatures were taken or at Palwal, the place which the plaintiff stated that the agreement had been executed or at Tehsil Hosal, the place where the police had recorded a statement made by the defendant and with all the contradictions, the plaintiff could not have been granted a decree.

(2.) There was a further contention that the suit itself was not competent, having been instituted by a person who was not a juristic person and hence, was not capable of enforcing the agreement. It was also the contention that there had been an important interpolation as regards the name of the plaintiff, for, what was stated in the agreement was only Shri Ram Mandir, while the plaintiff was described as Shri Sita Ram Mandir. Yet another objection was that the mandir was said to have been represented by the mahant Sita Ram Dass, but his signature was not found in the document but only the signature of a person by name Nanak Chand found the place in the agreement.

(3.) All these contentions in defence were rejected and being satisfied about the execution of the agreement, the trial court proceeded to grant a decree. The appellate court also confirmed the same.