MAHENDRA KUMAR Vs. SMT. MANNI DEVI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but interesting point has arisen in this revision petition.

(2.) Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance on 16.1.1999 before the learned District Judge, Sikar which was later on transferred to the court of learned Additional District Judge. This case is that agreement regarding sale of property situated at Nani Gate, Nala Ka Baas, Sikar was executed between the parties on 18.1.1996. Consideration of Rs. 1,10,000/ was agreed, out of which a sum of Rs. 1,00,0001- was paid on the same day. It was agreed that the balance of Rs. 10,000.00 would be paid at the time of registration. It was further averred that this balance was also paid on 26.1.1996 and the defendant assured to register the sale deed. Thereafter, the plaintiff constructed the shops on the said property. The defendant went on procrastinating to register the sale deed. On 6.10.1998, respondent No. 3 published a notification in the newspaper that the shops in question belong to him. He admitted before the petitioner, when both of them met, that he was misguided by some persons. Assurance was given to execute the sale deed on 15.1.1998. On 15.1,1998, respondent No. 3 did not come to register the sale deed. Consequently, plaintiff again met him on 26.10.1998. When he denied to execute and register the sale deed, a notice through Advocate was sent on 15.12.1998 and even thereafter the sale deed was not executed. Hence a suit for specific performance as well as permanent injunction was filed

(3.) The case of the defendants is that the agreement was executed on 18.1.1996 but the amount was not paid to them and consequently possession was not handed over and that construction has been made by the defendants on burn over which they have legal possession. It has also been averred that the agreement to sell required registration Under section 17 of the Registration Act. On the basis of pleadings, as many as 8 issues have been framed. When statement of the plaintiff was being recorded and when he wanted to exhibit the agreement dated 18.1.1996, objection was raised that the document was inadmissible in evidence. This objection was sustained by the learned trial Judge by the impugned order. Hence this revision.