LAWS(PAT)-1968-2-16

JAI MANGAL SINGH Vs. DHARAMNATH SINGH

Decided On February 16, 1968
Jai Mangal Singh Appellant
V/S
Dharamnath Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - as part of the unpaid consideration under a sale -deed dated the 18th October, 1951. The Suit was brought by the plaintiff respontdent on foot of a sale -deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs. 9,909/ -. Out of this amount, Rs. 8,900/ - was paid in cash but Rs. 1,000/ - was left in deposit with the stipulation that by Jeth, 1952, that is the following year, the appellant would redeem a mortgage bond, which was put in possession of the mortgagee by the plaintiff for this amount. When the amount would be paid, the plaintiff would be able to come in possession of the land free from encumbrance. In case of default, the plaintiff was liable to pay damages to the vendor, The defendant -appellant, however, did not pay the amount and in spite of a lawyer's notice to him by the plaintiff, he did not pay the mortgage amount. Hence the present suit was instituted for recovery of Rs. 1,000/ - and another sum of Rs. 600/ - as representing the profits of the mortgaged land for six years from 1955 to 1960. The suit was instituted on the 29th October, 1960. The land in respect of which the profit was claimed was plot No. 2234 of khata No. 667 of Mustafapur Bhadwar.

(2.) The defendant, however, resisted the claim of the plaintiff raising a plea that although there was a recital in the sale -deed executed by the plaintiff in his favour, as alleged in the plaint, and the defendant was liable to redeem the mortgage executed by the plaintiff, but subsequent to the execution of this document, the plaintiff came to the defendant with a prayer that the amount might be handed over to him and he would grant a receipt and a receipt (Ext. D) was actually grant' ed. There was also a plea by the defendant that the suit was barred by limitation.

(3.) The courts below have con currently found that Ext. D was not a genuine document and they have also held that the suit was not barred by limitation.