KARAN SINGH Vs. RAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS defendant's First appeal under section 96 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 4.6.1993 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Bayana District Bharatpur (hereinafter 'the trial court') decreeing the plaintiffs suit for specific performance and permanent injunction.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the plaintiff -respondent (hereinafter the plaintiff) Ram Lal filed a suit for specific performance on 14.2.1991 based on an agreement to sell stated to have been executed on 18.7.1989 in respect of agricultural lands ad -measuring 4 bigha 3 biswa (1 bigha 12 biswa in khasra No. 340; 1 bigha 4 biswa in Khasra No. 377 and 1 bigha 7 biswa in khasra No. 379) situate at Ataripur Tehsil Weir District Bharatpur (hereinafter 'the suit land') of which the defendant appellant (hereinafter 'the defendant') was the recorded khatedar. It was stated that the defendant had agreed to sell the suit land for a sum of Rs. 56,000/ - of which Rs. 30,000/ - was alleged to have been paid to the defendant on the same day and the remaining Rs. 26,000/ - was payable before the Registrar at the time of execution of the sale deed to be executed within six months. The plaintiff stated that the agreement to sell dated 18.7.1989 had been scribed by one Kishan Jatav and transaction witnessed by one Supariya and another Sonya Mali. The plaintiff averred that he was continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract yet the defendant refused to abide by his obligations under the agreement to sell dated 18.7.1989. Oral reminders by the plaintiff being of no avail a registered notice was sent on 26.12.1990 requiring the defendant to execute a sale -deed in terms of the agreement to sell dated 18.7.1989. The registered notice was received by the defendant on 27.12.1990 who yet continued to be in breach. Consequently the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 18.7.1989 was filed praying for a decree that the sale deed be executed in favour of the plaintiff, the possession of the suit land be handed over to him and that the defendant be directed not to thereafter interfere therewith.

(3.) ON service of notice of the suit, the defendant filed a reply of denial. The execution of agreement to sell dated 18.7.1989 was specifically denied and the purported agreement was alleged to be forged. The defendant's case in -stead was that he had borrowed Rs. 10,000/ - from the plaintiff in July 1989 on the guarantee of Sonya Mali and in respect of the said transaction the plaintiff Ram Lai had obtained his signatures on a Bahi and also on a blank 45 stamp paper of Rs. 5/ -. It was stated that thereafter when a sum of Rs. 9062/ -was available with the defendant on 5.7.1990, he sought to partly discharge his liability towards the loan repayable to the plaintiff Ram Lal. But Sonya Mali had taken the said amount with an assurance to deliver the same to Ram Lal. Villagers Ajmat, Brijendra, Papiya etc. were witnesses to Sonya Mali being paid Rs. 9062/ - by the defendant for and on behalf of the plaintiff. It was submitted that Sonya Mali however turned dishonest and in breach of faith, misappropriated the said amount to himself. Subsequently, the plaintiff and Sonya Mali had accosted the plaintiff in his house on or about 8.10.1990 and demanded the return of the whole of Rs. 10,000/ - loan with interest from the defendant. The defendant was then forcibly taken to the plaintiff Ram Lal's house where he was tied up and beaten. According to the plaintiff subsequently a Panchayat was convened at the request of the defendant to resolve the dispute. Sonya Mali and the plaintiff Ram Lal absented themselves and were found guilty of wrong doing in the meeting of the Panchayat. The plaintiff also stated that two FIRs were lodged by him with regard to the incidents. A complaint was also lodged on 26.11.1990 for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC against the plaintiff and others. It was stated that aside of being forged, the agreement to sell dated 18.7.1989, was also under stamped and un - registered and therefore not admissible in evidence. In these circumstances it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.