NANDLAL SAH Vs. PAWAN DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This is a plaintiff's second appeal who instituted a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale on the basis of a Mahadanama (agreement) dated 24.5.1967 (Ext. 2) in respect of a shop portion of a building situated in the town of Sitamarhi, fully described in Schedule II of the plaint Admittedly the plaintiff is in occupation of the said premises as a tenant. The building bears Municipal khasra no. 2080 and is described in Schedule I of the plaint.

(2.) According to the plaintiff's case, the defendant agreed to sell the suit premises for a consideration of Rs. 7,000/-. Out of that Rs. 4,000/- was paid by the plaintiff at the time of the agreement as earnest money and the remaining Rs. 3,000/- was to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale-deed which was to be executed on 25.4.1970, The plaintiff's further case is that although the defendant asked him to purchase the requisite stamps for the purpose of execution of the sale-deed, when the stipulated date approached the defendant went on putting off the matter and, therefore, he instituted the title suit in question. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that he "has been and is ready to perform his part of the contract by paying the remaining sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the defendant the moment the defendant executes the sale-deed and admits its registration".

(3.) In essence, the relevant defence set up by the defendant in her written statement was that there was no negotiation for sale of Schedule II property and that the Mahadanama in question was a forged and fabricated document under which no consideration passed. Her purpoted thumb-impression and signatures of the attesting witnesses were all forged and fabricated by the plaintiff. Accordingly there could be no occasion for the defendant asking the plaintiff to purchase any stamp duty or putting off the execution of the sale-deed.