KIRPAL SINGH Vs. MST KARTARO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance from the judgment and decree dated 16-2-1972 by Kan Singh, J., whereby the learned Judge set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of the contract of sale of agricultural land and substituted a decree for Rupees 4,000/-with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation.

(2.) The suit was instituted against Gujar Singh but he died during the pendency of this appeal and is now represented by his widow Shrimati Kartaro - respondent No. 1. It appears that after the decision by the learned Single Judge Guiar Singh sold away the land in question by a registered sale deed dated 313-1978 to Sukhmindra Singh, Balvindra Singh and Veer Singh, who have been also impleaded as respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 in this appeal, as transferees during the pendency of this appeal.

(3.) The plaintiff's case as set out in the plaint is that on 2-9-1967 the defendant agreed to sell the agricultural land in question --measuring 10 Bighas and 10 Biswas, situated in Chak 24Z, District Ganganagar to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per Bigha and executed agreement Ex. 1 in his favour. The plaintiff paid Rs. 2000/- to the defendant at the time of execution of the agreement, and agreed to pay the balance of the sale price, at the time of registration of the sale for which the date fixed was 15-1-1968. As regards delivery of possession of the land, it was agreed that possession of a portion of the land under 'kharif cultivation would be handed over to the plaintiff on 13-1-1968 and possession of the other portion under 'rabi' cultivation would be delivered to the plaintiff on 13-4-1968. The plaintiff averred that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, inasmuch as he had kept the money ready for payment towards sale price and had asked the defendant several times to execute the sale-deed and hand over the possession of the land as stipulated in the document, but the defendant went on evading the issue-The plaintiff goes on to state that he went to the office of Sub-Registrar on the appointed date, that is, 15-1-1968 to pay the price of the land, and to get the sale deed registered, but the defendant did not turn up. Consequently, the plaintiff filed the present suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Ganganagar on 22-1-1968 praying that a decree for specific performance of the contract of sale of land in question may be granted in his favour. The defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit and while admitting execution of the document Ex. 1 denied the receipt of Rs. 2000/- as part of the purchase price. He also pleaded that the agreement Ex. 1 had been interpolated and thus his plea was that the document being without consideration and forgery having been committed with respect to it the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. The trial court framed the following issues on the pleadings of the parties: 1. Whether the agreement dated 2-9-1967 is without consideration ? 2. Whether the agreement is void and ineffective in law? 3. Whether the last three lines have been added in the agreement after execution without the knowledge of the defendant ? 4. Relief?