Madhya Pradesh High Court
Puran Singh vs Chatra on 21 April, 2015
1
S.A.No.161/2006 (Puran Singh Vs. Chatra & others)
21042015
Shri R.P.Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Heard on the question of admission. Record of the case is
perused.
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the plaintiff under section 100 CPC is
directed against the concurring judgment and decree dated
28/10/2005passed in civil appeal No.23A/2004 by I Additional District Judge, Mungawali District Guna. The trial Court's judgment and decree dated 26/02/2000 passed in civil suit No.120A/1998 has been confirmed dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of contract, injunction and also recovery of possession.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are to the effect that the plaintiff filed a suit on the premise that for sale of agricultural land admeasuring 0.878 hectare falling in survey No.694 situated in village Godan, defendant No.1 had agreed on a consideration of Rs.3,000/. Out of the same, an amount of Rs.2,000/ was advanced on 08/08/1988 and an agreement was executed vide exhibit P/1. Within one month thereof, sale deed was to be executed and the remaining amount of Rs.1,000/ shall be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. However, the sale deed was not executed within one month. Defendant No.1 avoided execution of sale deed on one pretext or the other.
2S.A.No.161/2006 (Puran Singh Vs. Chatra & others) However, on 11/11/1990, the plaintiff acceded to the demand of defendant No.1 to pay additional amount of Rs.8,000/ as a condition precedent for execution of sale deed. For the said purpose, both the parties have reached Tahsil, Chanderi on 11/11/1990 but due to holiday, the sale deed could not be executed but the advocate, Satish Shrivastava has taken signatures on blank papers for preparation of agreement to sale. The same is marked as exhibit P/2. Neither exhibit P/1 nor exhibit P/2 were followed by a sale deed, instead the defendant No.1 transferred the suit land by execution of sale deed dated 13/05/1993 in favour of defendant No.2. Having come to know execution of aforesaid sale deed, the plaintiff served a notice for the purpose of execution of sale deed. Having received no reply thereto, the plaintiff filed the instant suit for specific performance of an agreement and injunction as the plaintiff claimed to be in possession of the suit land. However, during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff amended the plaint for seeking recovery of possession, according to him, he was dispossessed during this period.
3. Defendants No.1 & 2 have filed joint written statement and denied plaint allegations. It is inter alia contended that as defendant No.1, Chatra has solemnized marriage of his daughter, he has received loan from Bank and to repay the same, an amount of Rs.3,600/ was taken as loan from the plaintiff and suit 3 S.A.No.161/2006 (Puran Singh Vs. Chatra & others) land was mortgaged and possession was delivered to the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 in fact, repaid Rs.7,000/ to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had taken thumb impression of defendant No.1 on blank papers but not returned the same to the defendant No.1. It is alleged that the plaintiff has misused the aforesaid blank papers and prepared a document as an agreement to sale of the suit land. The said agreement to sale is a forged document and it cannot be acted upon. Even otherwise, as the suit land has been given on patta to the defendant No.1, there cannot be an agreement to sale or sale without permission of the competent revenue authority. With the aforesaid pleadings, suit was prayed to be dismissed.
4. On the aforesaid pleadings, trial Court framed issues and allowed parties to lead evidence. Upon critical evaluation of the entire evidence on record, trial Court has found that the plaintiff failed to establish the fact of execution of the alleged agreement to sale (exhibit P/2) and, therefore, no case was made out for specific performance of an agreement to sale, accordingly, dismissed the suit. On appeal, the first appellate Court has reconsidered the entire oral and documentary evidence on record from paragraphs 7 to 14 of the impugned judgment. It has been found that though the document, exhibit P/1 was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and an amount of Rs.3,600/ was paid to defendant No.1 and possession was 4 S.A.No.161/2006 (Puran Singh Vs. Chatra & others) delivered but, the instant suit was filed by the plaintiff on the strength of exhibit P/2 alleging that thereafter fresh agreement to sale was executed on 11/11/1990. First appellate Court considered the evidence as regards later agreement and found that there was no reference or details of previous agreement (exhibit P/1) therein. Hence, the document exhibit P/2 was found to be not in connection with or in the context of exhibit P/1. That apart, it is further found that there are inherent inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence led by the plaintiff as regards advancement of Rs.8,000/ to the defendant as alleged. In fact, the plaintiff's witnesses have stated that they have no knowledge as regards contents of exhibit P/2 as they have signed on blank papers and handed over to the advocate. Plaintiff's witness, P.W.2, Lakhsman Singh has not stated that an amount of Rs.8,000/ was paid to the plaintiff to defendant No.1 at the time of alleged execution of exhibit P/2. P.W.4, Satish Kumar Shrivastava in his crossexamination has stated that the plaintiff had told him that since he had no money, the sale deed could not be executed (paragraph 14 of the judgment of first appellate Court). Therefore, the first appellate Court confirmed the findings of the trial Court that there was no agreement to sale the suit land vide exhibit P/2 as alleged and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
5. Having gone through the concurrent impugned judgments rendered by the Courts below and the record of the case, this 5 S.A.No.161/2006 (Puran Singh Vs. Chatra & others) Court is of the opinion that both the Courts below have recorded pure findings of fact based on proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record and dismissed the suit As such, the findings of both the Courts below are fully justified in dismissing the suit of plaintiff and are impregnable in nature. The entire gamut of matter is in realm of facts. No question of law, much less substantial question of law arises warranting interference under section 100 of the Code.
6. The appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(Rohit Arya) Judge b/