HARBANS SINGH Vs. SHRIMATI GURDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the decision of the learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, confirming on appeal the order of the trial Judge, dismissing his suit for specific performance.

(2.) In November, 1962, Harbans Singh brought a suit against Shrimati Gurdevi for possession of half share of a property bearing municipal No. 2465/1, situate in the city of Amritsar, by specific performance of the agreement dated 13th of December, 1961. According to the allegations of the plaintiff, the defendant had purchased certain property from the Government on 30th of October, 1961. On 13th of December, 1961, she agreed to sell half of this property to the plaintiff for Rs. 4,000/- and an agreement to that effect was executed between the parties on that very day. She received a sum of Rs. 700/- from the plaintiff as an advance out of the sale-price. She agreed to execute a sale deed and get the same registered within 15 days from the date of the agreement, though time was not the essence of the contract. On 14th of December, 1961, she received another sum of Rs. 520/- from the plaintiff for the purchase of stamp-paper and she actually bought the same. Subsequently, however, it appears that somebody offered her better price, with the result that she changed her mind and started evading the execution of the sale-deed. The plaintiff was all along ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. He intimated the defendant to appear before the Sub-Registrar and get the sale registered on 27th of December, 1961. In response to that intimation, she appeared before the said officer but was not prepared to get the sale registered. On 22nd of February, 1962, the plaintiff, through a lawyer, served a notice on the defendant asking her to get the sale, in terms of the agreement, registered. She, however, sent a notice dated 2nd of March, 1962, through her lawyer, saying that the advance money had been forfeited by her and contract rescinded. She further denied having received any money for the purchase of the stamp-paper. The plaintiff then made an application for getting the sale-agreement registered before the Sub-Registrar on 6th of April, 1962. She failed to appear before the Sub-Registrar, in spite of service having been effected on her, and the said officer on 30th of April, 1962, refused to register the document. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the Registrar, Amritsar, and the defendant submitted before him that she had not executed the agreement in dispute. The Registrar, after recording the evidence of the parties, came to the conclusion that she had executed the agreement and, on 21st of July, 1962, ordered the document to be registered, which was actually done on 9th of August, 1962. Thereafter, the plaintiff again asked the defendant to get the sale registered and on 17th of September, 1962, served another notice in that behalf. On 23rd of September, 1962, she, through her counsel, sent a reply saying that she had not executed any agreement of sale and she refused to get the sale registered. The plaintiff had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and was still ready to get the sale registered in his favour, pay the balance of the sale price and abide by all the other terms of the agreement. The defendant, however, had illegally refused to perform her part of the contract and that necessitated the filing of the present suit.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit and pleaded that she had never entered into any agreement of sale as alleged by the plaintiff. She had not received Rs. 700/- as advance and Rs. 520/- towards the purchase of the stamp-paper. It appears that the plaintiff had fraudulently prepared some document which was never executed by the defendant. There was no necessity for her to sell the property in dispute or half portion of the same. The price of the house was about Rs. 20,000/- and she could not agree to sell it for Rs. 4,000/- only. She also denied having purchased any stamp-paper. Before the Sub-Registrar and the Registrar also, she had stated that she had not executed the document in dispute. It was also averred by her that the property in dispute had been acquired by Amritsar Improvement Trust and, consequently, the relief for possession by specific performance had become infructuous and the alleged agreement had become void.