RANI KUKREJA Vs. PRABHA BHAGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a rather unusual case where the Petitioner Defendant has approached this Court at the very threshold of the suit praying that the plaint in case No. 59-1 of 2011 be struck off and contempt proceedings be initiated against the Plaintiff for instituting vexatious proceedings after concealing material facts.

(2.) This case has a long and chequered history. Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) first filed a Civil Suit No. 11 of 1999 in this Court against Smt. Jayanti Devi, Smt. Prabha Singh, Ms. Shelja Singh and Ms. Girja Singh. The aforesaid four Defendants were the legal heirs of late Kr. Ranvijay Singh being his mother, widow and minor children. According to the Plaintiff, she had earlier purchased two big has of land from late Kr. Ranvijay Singh comprised in khasra No. 245/41/3 and entered into possession thereupon. According to her, after she had purchased this land on 30.7.1994, she entered into another agreement for providing a road to this land and consequently late Kr. Ranvijay Singh entered into an agreement with her on 30.7.1994, agreeing to sell one biswas of land comprised in khasra No. 245/41/1 for a consideration of Rs. 25,000/-. It was further alleged that late Kr. Ranvijay Singh was also the owner of other portion of land measuring 1 bigha 10 biswas and he agreed to sell this land comprised in khasra No. 42 measuring 18 biswas and khasra No. 249/44 measuring 12 biswas in all 1 bigha 10 biswas to the Plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 4,50,000/- vide agreement dated 1.7.1995. Plaintiff claimed that she had paid substantial amount in advance and the balance was to be paid later on. She also claimed that she had been put in possession of the land measuring 1-10 bighas which included 1 biswa of land of the road. She claimed that she had enclosed and fenced the land. She specifically stated that the cause of action arose on 30.7.1994 when agreement for transfer of land was entered into and this became part of the agreement dated 1.7.1995 and cause of action again arose on 1.7.1995. This suit was later on transferred to the court of learned District Judge, Shimla due to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction.

(3.) The Defendant in that case contested the suit. The learned Trial Court decreed the suit. Thereafter, Defendant filed an appeal in this Court. One of the main issues which arose in the suit was, whether the same is within limitation. The Plaintiff relied upon an endorsement dated 30th June, 1996, according to it, the agreement dated 1st July, 1995 had been renewed. A learned Single Judge of this Court came to the conclusion that the endorsement dated 30th June, 1996 was a forged and fictitious endorsement and not executed by late Kr. Ranvijay Singh and held that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell. The Plaintiff filed a Special Leave Petition being SLP No. 4198 of 2010 before the Apex Court which was dismissed on 19.2.2010.