SMT. SUGAN BAI Vs. SMT. MANJU & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A suit for specific performance of an agreement came to be filed by the plaintiff (ancestor of Respondents No. 1 to 3), on the premise of the facts that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 had mutually partitioned their ancestral house, vide a family settlement dated 31.12.2000; whereafter, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 entered into a mutual settlement dated 10.04.2001, vide which, the defendant No.1 had agreed to sell the shop to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-, in which, the defendant No.2 (the present petitioner) had been carrying on business in the name of 'Mahila Suhag Bhandar'. Pursuant to the said mutual settlement dated 10.04.2001, the defendant No.1 was paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 08.08.2001, in acknowledgment thereof, a receipt of even date in favour of the plaintiff came to be issued.

(2.) All the three documents were made the basis of the suit and were marked as Exhibit-1, Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-3 respectively. By way of the written statement, the defendant No.1 raised an objection in relation to the admissibility of the two documents, namely, the family settlements dated 31.12.2000 and 10.04.2001 for which, a specific issue in the form of issue No. 8 was framed by the Trial Court, which reads thus:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

(3.) During the course of proceedings, the defendant No.1 moved an application under Order XIV Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, requiring the Trial Court to decide the above issue as a Preliminary Issue. The said issue No. 8 came to be decided by the Trial Court as a Preliminary Issue, vide its order dated 23.10.2008 whereby the Court below had held that the mutual settlement dated 10.04.2001 is neither duly stamped nor registered; for which, it is not admissible in evidence. It will not be out of place to reproduce the findings recorded by the Trial Court, which reads thus:- ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...