LACHHMAN SINGH Vs. TODAR MAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit for specific performance of a contract said to have . been entered into between the plaintiff Lachhman Singh and Bageshri Dayal, The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit holding that the letter referred to in para. 2 of the plaint, dated 3 February 1921, was inadmissible in evidence and no contract; between the parties could be proved.

(2.) It appears that Bageshri Dayal died in the year 1922 and was succeeded by Todar Mal and Birumal, defendants first party. On 23 October 1925 Todarmal and Birumal executed a lease in favour of Baijnath and others, defendants second party. After the execution of the lease in their favour defendants second party applied to the revenue Court to have their names entered in the revenue papers. Lachhman Singh plaintiff objected, but his objections were disallowed and the names of Bajjnath and others were entered as lessees: hence the suit by Lachhman Singh.

(3.) The defence to the action among others was that the agreement referred to in the plaint was not admissible in evidence and that the plaintiff's claim was barred by time. Several issues were framed but the learned Subordinate Judge, by an order of 26 March 1927, directed the parties to produce evidence in respect of issue 3 only, and then the parties were permitted to argue issues 1 (b), 3 and 5. The learned Subordinate Judge, holding that the document of 3 February 1921 was not admissible in evidence, held that the plaintiff was not entitled to seek specific performance of the alleged contract. As regards issue 3 it was held that the claim regarding specific performance was cognizable by the civil Court, but that under the Tenancy Act the suit for possession . should be instituted in the revenue Court. As regards issue 5 it was held that the plaintiff's claim Was not barred by limitation.