SUBBAMMA Vs. MOHD. ABDUL HAFIZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by defendant against the decrees and concurrent judgments of the two lower Courts, whereby a suit for the specific performance of a contract to sell immovable property has been allowed,

(2.) THE appellant, an illiterate widow, is the owner of twenty three agricultural plots situated in Yellandu Taluqa, Warangal District. It is admitted that her permanent residence is at Avidi, in the Godavari District. She had appointed respondent 2 as her 'Mukhtar' to manage these holdings. He was appointed on 5th Aban 1349 F. (1st September 1940) and was dismissed on 80th Amardad 1350 Fasli (5th July 1941 A.D.). Daring the continuance of this agency, i.e., on nth Farwardi 1350 F. (12th February 1941 A.D.), an agreement to sell these plots, is alleged to have been executed by the appellant in favour of respondent 2. By it she agreed in consideration of RS. 2,500 to convey all the twenty -three plots, measuring over three hundred and fifteen acres, to the respondent or his assignees, by the end of Aban 1351 p. (September 1942). About two and half months before the expiry of the period i.e., on 20th Shehrewar 1351 F. (26th July 1942 A.D.), respondent 2 assigned in writing his rights under the agreement to respondent 1. This assignment was in consideration of Ks. 3,000 and out of the agreed amount Rs. 6,00 were paid to respondent 2, the remaining sum being left with the assignee to be paid as price to the appellant on the execution of the sale deed. Neither of the two documents is on stamp papers or is registered. The agreement to sell purports to bear the appellant's thumb impression and signatures of the scribe and two witnesses.

(3.) THE trial Court, relying on the evidence of respondent 2, the scribe, and the two attesting witnesses as well as on the absence of any effort to have the thumb impression proved as forgery by export testimony, has hold the agreement duly executed, it has also held the assignment to be proved, and then rejecting the plea of non -registration and of the value of the property being of a value greater than the sale price, on the ground that the agreement did not require registration and the valuation was not shown to be higher than the price at the time of the contract, decreed the suit. No decision about proof of good faith of the transaction was -given, because the Court held that as no plea of undue influence was raised in the written statement it cannot be gone into. The lower appellate Court concurring in those findings has disallowed the appeal and hence, this second appeal before this Court.