MOSTT PRABHAWATI DEVI Vs. RAM PRAVESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant has filed this First Appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 22.12.2008 passed by Sri Nagendra Prasad Tripathi, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Ist, Buxar in Title Suit No. 85 of 2004 decreeing the plaintiff-respondent suit for specific performance.

(2.) The plaintiff-respondent Ram Pravesh Singh filed aforesaid title Suit No. 85 of 2004 for specific performance of contract dated 05.05.2001 alleging that the defendant and her husband had purchased Schedule I property in the name of the defendant and her minor Son Govind Thakur. The defendant appellant was the guardian of her minor son, Govind Thakur. She herself and being the guardian of minor son agreed to sale Schedule I land of the plaint for Rs. 4,50,000/- in presence of her husband Sheojee Thakur and other witnesses. Earnest money of Rs. 4 lacs was paid immediately and on 05.05.2001, she executed a Mahadnama in favour of the plaintiff after receiving earnest money of Rs. 4 lacs. The defendant-appellant put her signature and endorsed regarding receiving of the said earnest money. The defendant promised to execute sale deed within 02.05.2004 after receiving balance amount of Rs. 50,000/-. The plaintiff along with witnesses several times approached the defendant and tendered the balance consideration of Rs. 50,000/- and requested to execute sale deed but she avoided to execute the sale deed. Lastly, on 02.04.2004, the plaintiff sent a registered legal notice to the defendant but no sale deed was executed. The plaintiff was always ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract.

(3.) On being noticed, the defendant-appellant appeared and filed contesting written statement. The main defense of the appellant is that no such contract was executed on 05.05.2001 and no earnest money was paid to her. Her husband, Sheojee Thakur was drunkard and he died in the year 2002 leaving behind the widow and her two sons, Govind Thakur aged about 10 years and Chhotu Thakur aged about 3 years and daughter, Meena Kumari aged about 13 years. The defendant is helpless lady and, therefore, the alleged deed of agreement was prepared and fabricated in collusion with the scribe and the witnesses.