HARJEET Vs. MEGHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition filed under Section 115 CPC arises out of the order dated 15.5.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Anta Distt. Baran in Suit No. 30/96 by which the said trial Court directed that the agreement on the basis of which the suit for specific performance had been filed should not be admitted in evidence. The facts which are relevant for deciding controversy between the parties briefly stated are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a civil suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 9.6.1975 of agricultural land measuring 7/1 Bighas situated in Khasra 1163 which he had purchased from the defendant-respondents for sale consideration of Rs. 2,000/- and in lieu of its payment, the respondents handed over its possession to the plaintiff. The recitals of the said agreement had divided that plaintiff could get the sale deed executed and registered for which defendant would extend all cooperation and the registration charges were to be borne by the plaintiff. In token of confirmation of the aforesaid agreement posssession of the land in question had also been handed over to the plaintiff. From the recitals of the said agreement, it is apparent that the Vendee had covenanted to agree to accompany the plaintiff for the purpose of effecting registration by execution of the sale deed as and when called upon to do so. The possession of the aforesaid lands was handed over to the plaintiff on the date of execution of the agreement itself i.e. on 9.6.1975. The agreement was executed on requisite Stamp Paper of Rs. 3/- . The original photostat copy of the said agreement has also been perused during the course of hearing which was made available by the learned counsel for the respondent at the time of hearing. The recitals of the agreement had provided that plaintiff could get the sale deed executed and registered as per his convenience.

(2.) Mr. K.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order of the trial court dated 15.5.1997 has contended that the aforesaid agreement of sale for the agricultural land is binding on the parties and it is not open to either party to deviate from the same. He has further contended that since the agreement itself specifically provided that plaintiff could get the sale deed executed and registered and which the defendant respondents had failed to execute, the last of such request was made on 30.9.1988; upon refusal of the non-petitioners to execute the same, having regard to the fact that the petitioner had been in continuous possession of the property under the said agreement, he was entitled to have the specific performance of the said agreement and also entitled to have the sale deed executed and registered. It was then submitted that the entire sale consideration had already been paid and he was always ready and willing to have the sale deed registered by accompanying the defendant-respondents before the competent authority but the defendants had failed to carry out the corre spending obligation imposed upon them under the said agreement. It was further contended that the trial Court vide its impugned order dated 15.5.1997 had failed to take the aforesaid aspects of the matter into consideration and that the order is not sustainable for the following reasons : (a) that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is absolutely illegal and contrary to facts on record as well as law and suffers from errors apparent on the face of record as well as errors of jurisdiction Th'e Court below has acted with material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction : (b) thtat the trial Court has erred in holding that the document was not properly stamped and therefore, could not be admitted into evidence The trial Court has based its finding on the ground that the document cannot be termed to be an agreement of sale but was a sale deed and should have been stamped on the basis of the valuation of Rs 2,000/-. It is submitted that the aforesaid finding of the trial Court is absolutely illegal and contrary to law as well as contrary to facts The document was not a sale deed at all but was only an agreement by which the defendants had agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff and it was specifically mentioned in the agreement that the plaintiff could, at his convenience, get the sale deed executed and registered The suit had been based on the aforesaid agreement; (c) that the tnal Court has erred in holding that the document was compulsorily registrable It is submitted that the document was not a sale deed but was an agreement of sale and it had specifically been mentioned that the sale deed would be executed and registered later. In such an eventuality, the document did not require registration; (d) that even otherwise, the trial Court has proceeded contrary to the provisions of the Stamp Act and hence, the order deserves to be set aside; (e) that the trial Court has acted with matenal irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction If the impugned order is allowed to stand, the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable injury and it will occasidn a failure of justice, moreso as the impugned order virtually amounts to dismissal of the suit, and (f) that even otherwise, the impugned order is illegal and the same deserves to be setaside

(3.) The learned counsel for the respond ents while controverting the aforesaid contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended inter-aha that the tnal Court has not committed any illegality in passing that order dated 15 5 1997 since the afore said agreement in question does not confer any rights on the plaintiff'nor it imposes My corresponding obligation on the respondents He has further contended that the trial Court had rightly appreciated the defence whidh he has urged before the trial Court In the written statement filed in reply to the plaint by the non-petitioners they had denied the execution of any such agreement It was also denied that possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff or that anything In writing had beeh executed between them In the addittonal pfeas, it was Submitted that the plaintiff had in collusion with the Assistant Settlement Officer, got an order forrecording of the land in his name against which, aft appeal before the Settlement Officer Kota was pending The plaintiff had filed the aforesaid agreement alongwith the plaint itself The issues have been framed by the trial Court and the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff While the evidence was being recorded, an objection was token oft behalf of the defendaat that the agreement was nof properly stamped and that it was a safe deed which was registered and since the valuation of the land had been mentioned more than Rs. 100/-, it was compulsorily registrabte The defendant submitted that the said document could not be admitted into evidence white the plaintiff contended that since the original document had been filed alongwith the plaint and since it was not a sale deed, only an agreement of sale which did not pass on any title by the Vendor to the Vendee-plaintiff itself and since it was executed on Stamp Paper of Rs. 3/- which infact was the stamp duty and since the relief prayed for in the suit was confined to the sale deed be got executed and registered; hence the suit for specific performance could not be turned down merely for the reason that agreement of sale was not registered being insufficiently stamped.