JUDGMEN WRIT/NG

122

3. CG 2012-13
Plaintiff's case 1s situated
D's ownership and possession
uproperty measuring 15 x 20 feet of defendant for sale was
(hereinafter referred to as the 'suit
property'). An agreement
Kaipur the suit propey
u D01.2011, between the plaintiffP and the
defendant D regarding aavance
Plaintiff paid Rupees 1,50,000 as
SIderation Rupees 1,85,625 was agreed upon,
of amount of sale consiaeraO O
n e y . it was agreed, that the plaintiff will pay the remaining was

of sale deed. The above agreement

08.04.201l to the defendant at the time of registration
arrived at
in of M and N. The plaintiff
DE
Dy the petition writer L and was executed presence
08.04.2011, but tne
the ofice of the sub-registrar for the performance of his part of
contract on
Dut
on 11.04.2011,
detendant did appear. The plaintiff again went to the office ofsub-registrar
not
him. The defendant
the defendant did not turn up. Plaintiff approached the defendant and apprised
tne
assured that he is ready to perform his part of agreement and
shall shortly carry out

performance.
the defendant,
After waiting for a few days, the plaintiff gave a through his lawyer to
notice
defendant neither appeared
calling upon him to appear in registration office on 21.04.2011 but the
and willing to
nor performed his part of the agreement. The plaintiff was and is always ready
filed with the prayers that
pertorm his part of agreement. Accordingly, the present suit is being
decree for specific performance of the contract dated 15.01.2011 be passed in favour of plaintiff
against the defendant. In the alternative it is prayed, that if the court does not consider it proper

to pass a decree for specific performance of the contract, then a decree be passed in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendant for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 which the plaintiff

paid to defendant as advance money along with interest of 18% per

annum.

Defendant's case
In written statement, the defendant has denied all the averments in the plaint and has pleaded
that the suit property is the Joint Hindu Family Property. It is pleaded that the suit property having
been acquired from the income of ancestral and Joint Hindu Family Property, cannot be alienated
by the defendant and plaintiff has no right to file the suit. The defendant has further pleaded that
there was no agreement executed between him and plaintiff on 15.01.2011. According to
defendant the plaintiff and his brother had entered into another purchase transactions with him
and at the time of that transaction, plaintiff had obtained defendane's signatures on various blank
papers on the pretext that these might be required for mutation proceedings. The defendant has
alleged that the alleged agreement was torged and radricated document prepared by misusing that

blank signed papers. The defendant has prayed that the suit of plaintiff be dismissed with cost.
 Soved Previous Year Questions - Civil 123
Plaintiff's evidence
PW-1 P in his examination-in-chief, repeated the pleadings made in plaint and exhibited the

agreement to sell (Ex.

agre P-1). In the examination he deposed that it is true that the family or
cross
defendants had sold other property to him and his family members and defendant's signature were
obtained on various paper. It is also true, that in the agreement, possession of the suit property
was allowed to have been delivered to him, but in the suit filed he has claimed possession by
alleging that it was not delivered to him. It is also true, that a dispute had arisen and relation became
strained and litigation started. It is false that he misused the blank signed papers.
PW-2 'M in his examination in chief, stated that the agreement (Ex. P-1) has been executed
in his presence and bears his signature. In cross examination, he deposed that he was not aware
whether any specific date was written or not.
PW-3 N deposed in support of execution of agreement (Ex. P-1) in his presence. In the cross
examination his statement remained unrebutted.
writer and
PW-4 L has deposed in his examination in chief, stating that he is a petition
and bear his signature deed writer. In the cross
agreement to sell (Ex. P-1) was written by him as

it is true that defendant at the time of writing the

examination he deposed that was not present
deed.
Defendant's evidence
examination he
DW-1 D' reiterated the pleadings made in the written statement. In the cross
the agreement (Ex. P-1) in favour of the plaintiff.
deposed that it is false that he executed
Plaintiff's arguments
since the possession was sought
That the agreement did not require compulsory registration,
to perform
That the plaintiff was always ready and willing
for and had actually not been delivered.
his part of agreement.

Defendant's arguments because it is specially mentioned in the

That the agreement requires compulsory registration, false and
plaintiff. That agreement is
a
to the
greement that the possession
had been delivered
of mutation which have been
abricated document. Blank signed paper was given for the purpose
misused.
 INTHE CoURT oF CIVIL TUDAE CLASS-02 ,Paipu ( )
CPesided by -)
CNR No-
CMCaseNor-
Date of Instihton

Pslo
Age
DCCupaon

VnSus Plainkf
Dslo do NhaY Suate,fajpuy
Age
oXeupaion Defendot

Poesent Counsel .Sks

2. Sy deft
JuDAEMENT
(Ponoune bh 2011)

The pesent Suit har been Sled by Plhnsffp' undet

Secon lo o he Specisc lelefAct, 1963 (hexemae a SEA)
o91the Specifz performan.ce bComkact on the basis
Ag9eement o såle dabed s'0iL201 f.sui popeuty.
2, isadmiHe facl hat Sianaduxe a Defandot 3' war-akeh
bh Vasu OUS faae
 mecduly 5yloketstak!
tsel f House propay
Melry Snuane,Paipu
Ploindi
3.The Shbny a he Pif Ts that the Jekhdant D' mak an
agreement gbl th Plaunf 'pt fcnu) Consjderedn
R s 185,62s havy pad eaheEmohey ,59,oD
and temaining_ amouxt
s bepays bn og A| 20!| he
dett
CSy of PH
S Pett_

Pesoluhonfails,
Dispue
enhane
analysed CAn-shon)
5)Afte haing aheN all he pendngs andenials
A f e boh he þaries and afte "examinathen_
OpoP2the lotng Tssues_aneAared
LPoINts FoR DETCPHINATLON]
L JhetHe thene was an ageement o Sale or the
Sale of Suit propanybenueen borh the pontes? }

2 lohethe the plf is 9teady and iling f peBm

hepostt of tonacl)
Lehethen he ptf is endiled fsa the Speyfc pafmare
Contrac PF
tthethet in alternatve plE j enitled pr Riovey
Sum bf Ps 50,6 along h infejef 18). pe armum
 Reason for deteminaton
Acc4o Selola TSSue: L
IEA

S S Onus of berovhe this issue res on the deft.T

dischoge is Ohts, Pw-1 in is enamhaton-in cbief
Hepead he pleadngs made h pla?nt and ensbieri
he agpeemand h sale , in his cross- enaninaton he
adtkd hat due to paevous transachons beiuen them
deendant syrahune wee obtelned oh Vosyous papey
(Pu
6. P Uso pHesent 'PAI-2'CM) uoho cormborated the Pu1
Vension and admifled that EnP-1 Mas beeh enecukd
n s poeseNKe and beos As Signasne, In ais cross-
enannann he depoanel that he wäs hot alooe about
the date beng méndoned or hot
Pw3 also conoboraded the Pnw-1veuibh ans Supot
LnP npMesenceInus cmr-enaninaton
Stakmen qemain uhtebuted.

8.P-ar deposedn s exaninahon-ckief hatfe

S apehhoN wte and9geemantb Sakl-Pi7 ns
wten by Aim. andbea r lghasre ar ded
LwHeBuy in ks oo-enaninahon he aaha_al
Hhat dendant as hopetent-at e fme aA
09uhup he deed.
9. Deknot [Dw11 5 teieatd he pleadigs Moce
n the wPiHEN StejeMat.In kh crassnainatn
e den ed hd he enecuoh Df ageement n favn
bf Rainiff
. Aten havir analysrned allthe edencej p2ErEeI by
 Ke both the pomes.ts ohe view thos
col»d
dtie fo porenor ranacton behoeen the pa9rhes the {r
of he deendant Nas takeh Aa muhiahon pyoleeding
Sohe bievious sran.sacto) was an'occacon' iH
bochplalns}f Canved an'opporniy' for furthet se
documentaioh ,also Pw1 in ajs enaminaon didhofF
the Sgho
depogel hat pr shat pltpase he had akeh
Heo deEndant Pho-2 wasHe ihess inohese pekNE-
49MeErONt twgs dene So e beceme Dhect Evilence' de
Sneh
Sechoh 6o but ne adnnatkd that he was hot suppor
AENpect duteSo Nheomeo uhsHeligble P-3
the uesSion o fw-1 and e 9Hemajh unSieburtted.
P4also_depos hat he sgr a Scnbe wgite and
and had LO9uten_ 4gaeement o Sale but he fact that
headraitled the absence of dekndant aopbecome
Heljable as he_tooborate he Dw-1 SAoay and alo hgs
Evidence becames i o t Evidence unde Sechon bo s he
dh-he
Indkan Eidence Acty 1272 So Haking of anadue
Blonk apo Chous he monel ofPladnh}f hat
fpr usng
tus CoLt p of e
ter any lea pwpase, Hence,
iew that det able o peyove ht vensloh. hS
isSye pOed by deendant
lea
U y s eS e e l o 6

TSue No: 62& o

D f T E A

11. Hee Hhe validhy bf aggeement hot peroved. Hene

hees ho heed p Enoine Hegdiness a nohes"
as pe SecDon 160) of SP, AlSo plan-f
hot enhtked r the spife pefrmerce bf CoPact
HeNBotk te Torue sanb dbpoed
 Pelie and Cost
Sut Is dsmssse ph fhe Basrs oporepondeance o
PHobability DeyseyK eybyEA ips toot makes helds
s llouds: -
0

Plainh s hot entilel fr he specifc pefmane

ofContact 01 in alfethahve a 9Hemeay o
Amount
2)
)There war ho Agreement fo Sale of Sut propenty.
) Plainff Cl| bean s buoh Cast- Qs udl as cast
deenant,
4)Cenfed Advocate fees bil| be added in he cast.
Detoiee p be dxauon Accokdg ly

Sn 2Seal of the
Cort
The
Cass L Paipt C-G
Judgmert s proheunced
n opeh (ott,date And
Place