KAWALJIT SINGH Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners defendants are successors -in - interest of late Kartar Singh Duggal and respondents -plaintiffs are the successors -in -interest of late Mool Singh. Respondents - plaintiffs filed civil suit for specific performance of agreement dated 10 -1 -1958 whereby late Kartar Singh Duggal had agreed to sell the property to late Mool Singh bearing evacuee No. 131/A, measuring 2534 Sq. yards situated in Garden View, Cart Road, Shimla, for a total consideration of Rs. 4,837/8 annas out of which an amount of Rs. 2500/ - was paid as earnest money.

(2.) The petitioners -defendants resisted the suit on the ground that the agreement was illegal, void and inoperative. According to them, it was an act of undue influence, mis -representation of fact and fraud. Petitioners, who were defendants No. 1 to 4, including Avtar Singh Duggal son of Kartar Singh Duggal, who has since died, took up the stand in paragraph -3 of their written statement that sale consideration as claimed by the plaintiffs is not just and equitable and no such payment was made to late Kartar Singh Duggal towards sale consideration. It is also pointed out that late Kartar Singh Duggal could not enter into an agreement for sale as he himself was not the owner at the time of execution of the said agreement. According to them, the plaintiffs being non -agriculturists were not eligible to acquire the suit property in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Similarly, the petitioners, who were defendants No. 5 to 7 in the suit, raised one of the preliminary objections besides others that the agreement to sell was void for uncertainty and its enforcement would be against public policy and law. Even if it is proved to have been executed it is highly unfair and oppressive. The plea of delay and laches was also taken as Kartar Singh Duggal has died in 1970 whereas the sait was brought in 1987. In reply to Paragraph -3 of their written statement it is stated that, "In action on the part of Shri Mool Singh is also a strong circumstance to infer that there was no agreement and even if there was any, the same was obtained by him by deceiptful means and mis -representation." Therefore, from the perusal fo the written statement it is clear that the petitioners -defendants have not denied the execution of the agreement to sell and have not taken the stand that it does not bear the signatures of late Kartar Singh though the photocopy of agreement to sell as filed alongwith plaint which bears the signatures of late Kartar Singh Duggal as well as his son the original defendant No. 2 Avtar Singh Duggal.

(3.) Admittedly, the trial of the suit is at the final stage and the petitioners -defendants closed evidence on 4 -7 -1995. Thereafter, they filed an application for additional evidence under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC which was disamissed on 8 -4 -1996 and the Civil Revision preferred by them in this Court was withdrawn on 7 -11 -1996. The petitioners defendants also filed further application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement to specifically deny the execution of the agreement to sell by late Kartar Singh Duggal in favour of late Mool Singh and to take the plea that the document of agreement to sell appears to be forged with an ulterior motive to grab their property as it does not bear the signatures of late Kartar Singh Duggal. The reason for moving such an application at such a late stage was that they were not conversant with the signatures of late Kartar Singh Duggal and had come to know the same when one of them had inspected the records of Rehabilitation Department on 25th July, 1995, in order to move the application for obtaining certified copies of some documents to be filed alongwith their application for additional evidence under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. The said application for amendment of written statement under order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was dismissed on 12 -3 -1997. Hence, the present revision petition.