May it please your honour

• the present suit has been filed by the sole plaintiff(Ram Ashish Singh) with primarily 2
prayers. The first prayer being that the defendant 1st set who has entered into an
agreement for sale of the suit property on 15.02.2019 with the plaintiff, accepted part
payment(to the amount of 2500 out of the total consideration of 3500),has later refused
to execute a sale deed as per the agreement. The fact of the matter is that the
defendants, namely thakai singh and ram bilas singh, After 3 years of evading the
plaintiff, defendant 1st set has sold the property to def 2nd set. Thus, we have filed this
suit due to the reason that the plaintiff was ready to perform his part of the contract yet
has not received the performance of reciprocal promise by defendant 1st set.
• thus, we pray that
1. Def 1st set be directed execute complete sale in favour of the plaintiff
2. The Sale deed executed by the defendant set 1 with set 2 be declared void ab initial
and not binding on the plaintiff.

D set 2 has completely denied the allegations in the plaint and d set 1 has not been
present before the learned court. An ex parte order has been passed against defendant
1st set. Since there is controversy in the pleading, the following 9 issues have been
framed:
1. As per section 6, 9 and 15-21 of CPC, the learned court has territorial, pecuniary
and subject matter jurisdiction on the matter.
The suit has been valued at 3500 rs which is within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the the
munsiff court and the cause of action has arisen within the limits of territorial
jurisdiction of the learned court.
2. Cause of action for the plaintiff has arisen on 15.02.2019 when the defendant
set 1 signed the contract, on 24.02 when the stamp paper was bought, and on
31.12 when upon tendering the remaining consideration, D set 1 has refused to
perform the contract.
 3. as the cause of action has arisen less than 3 years prior to the institution of suit,
i.e. on 15.02.2019, the suit is within limitation as per schedule attached to the
limitation act, 1963.
4. The plaintiff submits that these has been no misjoinder or non joinder of parties,
since both the necessary parties have been joined to the suit as defendants.
5. Whether the Mahadnama (agreement for sale) executed between plaintiff and
defendant set 1 on 15.02.2019 is forged and antedated?

Def set 2 has contested the authenticity of the agreement to sell and thus the
plaintiff relies on following witnesses to prove the validity of the same. Firstly,
PW6, i.e. the plaintiff has testified on affidavit as well as under oath that Thakai
Singh and Vaman Singh have signed the agreement. Additionally, the plaintiff
has presented PW2, namely sarthak, who is the handwriting expert at the
forensic department and has attested to the authenticity of signatures of
defendant set.1 in the Mahadnama. Upon comparing the signature in the sale
deed with the def 2nd set(which is not under contest), with the signature of
defendants on the agreement with the plaintiff, he has concluded that the
signatures are put by the same person. Additionally, PW4, namely saket has
also testified to the fact that defendant no. 1 and 2 put their signatures on the
mahadnama dated 15.02.2019 in his presence.

6. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the consideration for the sale
agreement to the defendant set 1 before 31.12.2019?

Under the agreement, the plaintiff was supposed to pay the remaining 1000/- to the
defendant set 1 before 31.12.2019 upon which sale deed was to be executed. In
pursuance of performing the agreement, as relayed by PW4, who himself is the friend
of the defendant no.1, the plaintiff had repeatedly offered to pay the defendant 1st set.

7. Whether defendant set 1 have refused the performance of agreement from

plaintiff?

Upon repeated requests by the plaintiffs, the defendant 1st set refused to accept the
consideration and kept giving the excuse of first illness and then death of Vaman
Singh.

The plaintiff maintains that they have made repeated attempts to get the sale deed
registered, yet defendant 1st set have kept them stalling and have refused to accept
the remaining consideration. On this point, plaintiff relies on the evidence of DW1 Zila
Tahsildar, who has stated that there has been no dakhil kharij in favour of the plaintiff
and the suit property has always been with the defendant set 1 till 21st of May, 2021.
 8. Whether defendant set 1 are in violation of the Mahadnama dt. 15.02.2019?

Combined effect of the two previously proven facts is that defendant set 1 have
breached the sale agreement.
In such a cases, plaintiff relies on the case of Sughar Singh v Hari Singh(civil appeal
no 5110 of 2021)-where the apex court stated that specific performmance was no
more a discretionary relief where agreement’s execution, part performance and
plaintiff’s willingness is proven.

9. Whether defendant set 2 had knowledge of the sale agreement executed

between plaintiff and defendant set 1 on 15.2.2019?

It has been argued on behalf of the defendant 2nd set that they are the bona fide
purchasers of the suit property and thus their title should not be affected by a pervious
agreement by the seller. On this poit, plaintiff submits PW5, Raman, who has testified
to the fact that he had informed defendant no. 6, anirudh Singh of the sale agreement
dt. 15.02.2019 three months prior to the execution of sale deed between defendant set
2 and the 1st set.

Therefore, the counsel on behalf of the plaintiff humbly argues that as,

Defendant 1st set have refused to appear in court,

Have entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiff and have accepted
partperformance yet have not executed sale deed in our favour as decided,

An ex parte decree should be passed against the defendant 1st set directing them the
execute the sale deed as per the agreement dt. 15th of feb 2019.

Further, the plaintiff prays the sale deed dt 29th May 2021 should be held void ab initio,
as def 2nd set are not bona fide buyers of the suit property.

For which, the plaintiff shall forever pray.

Sukhbir Vs. Ajit Singh [Civil Appeal No. 1653 of 2021]