Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jagdish vs Smt Deepshikha Garg on 19 December, 2012
Author: Prem Shanker Asopa
Bench: Prem Shanker Asopa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ....... JUDGMENT SB CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.420/2012 Jagdish vs. Smt. Deep Shika Garg DATE OF JUDGMENT :::::::::: 19.12.2012 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr. Rajesh Kumar Saini for the defendant-appellant. Mr. Bihari Lal Agarwal for the plaintiff-respondent. Reportable BY THE COURT:
By this first appeal, the defendant-appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 12th April, 2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Suit No.102/2008, whereby the civil suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance has been decreed.
2. Briefly, stated the relevant facts of the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent are that on 7th November, 2006 the plaintiff respondent and the defendant appellant entered into an oral agreement for sale of the disputed plot no.93, Ladli Path, Chomu House, Jaipur, the details of which have been given in para no.1 of the plaint, for a consideration of Rs.25 lacs and a cheque of Rs.21,000/- was given for the same. Subsequently, the said oral agreement was reduced in writing on 16th November, 2006 and further two cheques of Rs.15,000/- each were given to the defendant. Thus total amount Rs.51,000/- was given to the defendant which has been encashed by him. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement and a notice in the `Rajasthan Patrika' dated 6th January, 2007 was published on her behalf regarding agreement to purchase of the disputed property. Thereafter, again a notice for writing a sale deed was given through her counsel on 7th January, 2007. The other facts which have been mentioned in the plaint are that the husband of the plaintiff is the tenant in the said premises and the said notice was returned by the defendant with malafide intention. However, on 9th January, 2008 when the defendant threatened the plaintiff to dispossess her from the premises in question then she filed a civil suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Additional Civil Judge No.2, Jaipur City along with an application for grant of temporary injunction. The said application for temporary injunction was dismissed on 6th August, 2008 on the ground that the alternative remedy of filing civil suit for specific performance is available with the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the present civil suit on 7th August, 2008 for specific performance of the sale agreement dated 16th November,2006 and for permanent injunction that the defendant shall not alienate the property to any other person.
3. The defendant filed written statement and raised some preliminary objections and also filed reply on merits that the plaintiff and her husband are giving the rent in installments and taking advantage of defendant's being illiterate, with malafide intention got signed blank papers on the pretext of preparing the the receipt of rent which was signed by him under goodfaith. Thus, the said agreement has been forged with dishonest intention to grab the property. Another objection was that since the agreement was not a registered one, the same is having no value in law and the plaintiff is not entitled for a decree of specific performance. The defendant has also raised objection that the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC as earlier the plaintiff had filed a civil suit for permanent injunction on the same cause of action wherein she could have prayed for a decree for specific performance therefore, the present suit for specific performance is barred and as such, the plaintiff is not entitled for a decree for specific performance. On merits, it has been replied that no such oral agreement for sale of the property in question for a consideration of Rs.25 Lacs was entered into between the parties on 7th November, 2006 thereafter also no agreement was reduced in writing and no consideration was taken from the plaintiff as sale consideration. Signature of the defendant has been obtained in a deceitful manner on blank stamp papers which has been given a shape of an agreement with a dishonest intention. The defendant has specifically denied receipt of Rs.51,000/- as sale consideration. It is then stated that the said amount is of arrears of rent. In the written statement it has also been submitted that the said disputed premises are having area of 242.83 sq. yards. of which the present market value is rupees One Crore. Therefore, sale of the property for a consideration of Rs. 25 Lacs is imaginary and false. No time limit has been mentioned in the said agreement.
4. The plaintiff has filed a rejoinder and denied all the preliminary objections with the further submission that the defendant has voluntarily signed the agreement dated 16th November, 2006 on a stamp of Rs.100/-. He is a literate person and has encashed the cheques after signing the same and depositing the same in his bank account. It has also been stated that as per the provisio to Section 49 of the Registration Act,1908 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1908') for the purpose of suit for specific performance, registration of the agreement to sell is not necessary and further cause of action for specific performance has accrued on 7th August, 2008 whereas cause of action for permanent injunction was accrued on earlier occasion when she was threatened to dispossess by the defendant on 9th January, 2008. Thus, both the cause of action accrued on different dates. She has also denied that the valuation of the property is worth rupees one Crore. She has further submitted that the suit is within limitation.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial court:-
1.??? ????????? ?? ???? ????????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?????? 16.11.2006 ?? ????????? ????????? ????, ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ???????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ?----??????
2.??? ?????? ???? ?????????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?????(????? ???? ??????) ??? ?? ?---??????
3.??? ???? ????????? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ?---?????????
4.??? ?????? ?? ????????? ???? ?? ???? ????????? ???? ?? ???????? ?????????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?---?????????
5.?????? ?
6. In support of the pleadings, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and further examined Naresh Goyal as PW.2 and 7 documents were also exhibited.
7. In defence, the defendant examined himself as DW.1 and also examined Ganesh Narayan Meena as DW.2. No document was exhibited in defence.
8. The trial court after consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence decided Issues no. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. Issues no.3 and 4 have been decided against the defendant appellant and in favour of the plaintiff respondent. On consideration of the findings on the aforesaid issues, the trial court while granting the relief came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondent is entitled for a decree of specific performance and is further entitled for injunction for not alienating the property in dispute. Thus, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12.4.2012, the trial court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent. While passing the decree it has been ordered that in case, the plaintiff makes payment of Rs.24,49,000/- (Rupees twenty four Lacs forty nine thousand) to the defendant within a period of two month then the defendant will execute the sale-deed of the property in question as described in para no.1 in favour of the plaintiff and both the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the property in dispute. The expenses of the registry would be born by the plaintiff.
9. Counsel for the defendant appellant submitted that while deciding Issue no.1, the trial court has committed error in relying upon agreement to sell dated 16th November, 2006 (Ex.2) which is an unregistered and insufficiently stamped document. Therefore, the same is inadmissible in evidence as per Section 17 of the Registration Act and Section 37 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998. There are several contradictions in the statements of the plaintiff (PW.1) and her witness Naresh Goyal, PW.2 with regard to execution of the document. The trial court has also committed an error in not considering the present valuation of the property in question and the valuation mentioned in the agreement to sell is much on the lesser side. On Issue No.2, counsel for the defendant-appellant submitted that there is no specific finding that the plaintiff respondent was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract. On Issue no.3, counsel for the defendant appellant submitted that the said document is a forged one and the trial court has not properly analysed the evidence on the said issue. The issue of lesser valuation was again considered by the trial court while deciding Issue No.4 which is with regard to the valuation of the property and held that the plaintiff respondent has rightly paid the court fee on the correct valuation of the property mentioned in the agreement. Thus, the trial court has decreed the civil suit contrary to the evidence as well as against Section 17 of the Act of 1908 and Sections 35 read with Section 37 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act,1998 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1998') and further provisions of law of Specific Relief Act, according to which even if the agreement is proved then also `readiness and willingness' is an essential part for passing a decree of specific performance which is not proved from the evidence on record.
10. No judgment has been cited by counsel for the defendant-appellant in support of the aforesaid contentions.
11. Counsel for the plaintiff respondent submitted that execution of the document is proved even as per the evidence of the defendant as the defendant has admitted his signature on the said document and in his cross examination also he has not specifically denied his signature on page no.3. He further submits that the said document has been executed on the non-judicial stamp of Rs.100/- whereas receipt of rent is not to be given on stamp and that too on the stamp on which his photograph of the defendant is affixed. He has also not explained as to from where his photograph was taken and then affixed the same on the agreement.
12. Counsel for the plaintiff respondent further submitted that minor contradiction in the evidence of PW.1 Deepshikha Garg and PW.2 Naresh Goyal will not result in disproving the said document execution of which has been admitted by the defendant appellant. Therefore, the trial court has rightly given finding on the issue of execution of the document while dealing with Issue No.1 and further rightly came to the conclusion while deciding Issue No.4 that the same is not a forged document.
13. On Issue No.2 regarding `readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff', it was submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff that the finding given by the trial court in favour of the plaintiff respondent, is based on the documentary evidence Ex.4 and Ex.5. Therefore, the suit has rightly been decreed on the basis of the evidence available on record. As regards the legal issues raised by the counsel for the defendant appellant are concerned, counsel for the plaintiff respondent has placed reliance on the admissibility of an unregistered document in a civil suit for specific performance, on paragraph nos. 11, 12 and 13 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.Kaladevi vs. V.R.Somasundaram & Ors. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 401 according to which by virtue of proviso to Section 49 of the Act of 1908 an unregistered document in a civil suit for specific performance is admissible in evidence.
14. On the objection of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, counsel for the plaintiff respondent submitted that the cause of action for filing the civil suit for permanent injunction and civil suit for specific performance have accrued on different dates and, therefore, the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC will not be attracted. In support of aforesaid contention, counsel for the plaintiff respondent has placed reliance on paragraph no.16 of the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Kuruvakotapaty Chinna Linganna vs. Alla Mallikarjuna Reddy & Ors. 2012(1) Civil Court Cases 738(AP). On other legal objections of the counsel for the defendant appellant, that the agreement to sell is insufficiently stamped, counsel for the plaintiff respondent submitted that the said document was marked as Ex.2 and at that time no such objection was raised by the counsel for the defendant appellant and after marking the document as exhibit, i.e. admitting the said documents in evidence, further evidence was produced by both the parties. Therefore, as per Section 40 of the Act of 1998 where the document (instrument) is admitted in evidence, such admission shall not be called in question except as provided in Section 71 of the Act of 1988 at any stage of the same suit on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. The said Section 40 of the Act of 1998 is pari-materia to Section 36 of the Indian Stamps Act,1899. While dealing with Section 36 of the Indian Stamps Act, the Supreme Court in the case of Javer Chand & Ors. vs. Pukhraj Surana AIR 1961 SC 1655 (para 4) and Barium Chemicals Ltd. vs. Vishwa Bharati Mining Corporation and Anr. (2009) 16 SCC 262 (paragraph nos.3 and 4) held that once a document has been marked as an exhibit in the case and the trial court proceeded all along on the footing that the document was an exhibit in the case and has been used by the parties in examination and cross-examination of their witnesses, S. 36 of the Stamp Act comes into operation. Once a document had been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open either to the Trial Court itself or to a Court of Appeal or revision to go behind that order. Such an order is not one of those judicial orders which are liable to be reviewed or revised by the same court or a court of superior jurisdiction. On the issue of considerable increase in the price, a decree of specific performance cannot be denied, counsel for the plaintiff respondent has cited the judgment in the case of Laxman Tatyaba Kan Kate & Anr. vs. Smt. Taramati Harishchandra Dhatrak 2010(3) Civil Court Cases 828(SC).
15. On the Issue that the present civil suit for specific performance is barred as the plaintiff respondent has filed earlier suit for permanent injunction and both the cause of actions are same, counsel for the plaintiff respondent submitted that the cause of action is different, therefore, the suit for specific performance is maintainable and he has placed reliance on paragraph no.16 in the case of Kuruvakotapaty Chinna Linganna (supra), wherein learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, held as under:-
16. As to this contention, I would like to emphasize that the suit for perpetual injunction was filed when there was an attempt by the defendants to trespass in to the schedule mentioned land, whereas the suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiff to get a regular sale deed executed by the defendants in terms of Ex.A.1-agreement to sell dated 30.7.1985. The cause of actions in both the suits is different for which separate suits may be brought by the plaintiff. The learned trial court was right in holding that since both the suits are based on different causes of action, the suit for specific performance is not barred under Order 2 Rule 2(3) of CPC. The finding, therefore, recorded by the learned first appellate court according to which it reversed the finding of the trial court holding that the suit for specific performance is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC being contrary to the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is set aside in these second appeals. However, it does not change the result of the suit since this Court upheld the finding of the first appellate court that the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell in terms of Ex.A1 filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. (emphasis supplied)
16. I have gone through the record of the first appeal as well as the record of the trial court and further considered the evidence as well as law on the aforesaid issues raised by counsel for both the parties. On consideration of the aforesaid submissions along with the judgments cited by counsel for the plaintiff respondent, the findings of this Court on the aforesaid Issues are as under:-
Issue no.1.
17. On Issue No.1, counsel for the defendant appellant submitted that the agreement dated 16.11.2006 is neither registered nor the same is sufficiently stamped, therefore, it is inadmissible in evidence and the trial court has committed error in giving finding that the same is admissible in evidence.
18. On the other hand, counsel for the plaintiff respondent submitted that the same is admissible in evidence. In support of the aforesaid submission, counsel for the plaintiff respondent has placed reliance on paragraph nos. 11,12 and 13 of the judgment in the case of S.Kaladevi (supra), and paragraph 4 of the judgment in the case of Javer Chand & Ors. (supra). The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgments are as follows:-
11.Section 49 gives teeth to Section 17 by providing effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered. Section 49 reads thus:-
49.Effect of non-registration of documents required to be registered-
No document required by Section 17 or by any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered shall-
(a) affect any immovable property comprised therein, or
(b) confer any power to adopt, or
(c) be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power, unless it has been registered:
Provided that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by this Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), to be registered may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (1 of 1877), or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. (emphasis supplied)
12. The main provision in Section 49 provides that any document which is required to be registered, if not registered, shall not affect any immovable property comprised therein nor such document shall be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property. The proviso, however, would show that an unregistered document affecting immovable property and required by the 1908 Act or the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to be registered may be received as an evidence to be contract in a suit for specific performance or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be affected by registered instrument. By virtue of proviso, therefore, an unregistered sale deed of an immovable property of the value of Rs.100 and more could be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance of the contract. Such an unregistered sale deed can also be admitted in evidence as an evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. When an unregistered sale deed is tendered in evidence, not as evidence of a completed sale, but as proof of an oral agreement of sale, the deed can be received in evidence making an endorsement that it is received only as evidence of an oral agreement of sale under the proviso to Section 49 of the 1908 Act.(emphasis supplied)
13. Recently, in KB Saha and Sons (P) Ltd. V. Development Consultant Ltd. (2008) 8 SCC 564 this Court noticed (SCC pp. 576-77, para 33) the following statement of Mulla in his Indian Registration Act (7th Edn., at p. 189):
The High Courts of Calcutta, Bombay, Allahabad, Madras, Patna, Lahore, Assam, Nagpur, Pepsu, Rajasthan, Orissa, Rangoon and Jammu & Kashmir, the former Chief Court of Oudh; the Judicial Commissioner's Court of Peshawar, Ajmer and Himachal Pradesh and the Supreme Court have held that a document which requires registration under Section 17 and which is not admissible for want of registration to prove a gift or mortgage or sale or lease is nevertheless admissible to prove the character of the possession of the person who holds under it.
This Court then culled out the following principles; (K.B. Saha case SCC P.577 para 34)
1. A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act.
2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.
3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from the transaction to effect which the law required registration.
4. A collateral transaction must be transaction not itself required to be effected by a registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards.
5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use a document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose.
To the aforesaid principles, one more principle may be added, namely, that a document required to be registered, if unregistered, can be admitted in evidence as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance.
19. Relevant portion of para 4 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Javer Chand & Ors. (supra):-
In our opinion, the High Court misdirected itself, in its view of the provisions of S.36 of the Stamp Act. Section 36 is in these terms:-
Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, except as provided in section 61, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped.
That section is categorical in its terms that when a document has once been admitted in evidence, such admission cannot be called in question at any stage of the suit or the proceeding on the ground that the instrument had not been duly stamped. The only exception recognised by the section is the class of cases contemplated by S.61, which is not material to the present controversy. Section 36 does not admit of other exceptions. Where a question as to the admissibility of a document is raised on the ground that it has not been stamped, or has not been properly stamped, it has to be decided then and there when the document is tendered in evidence. Once the Court, rightly or wrongly, decides to admit the document in evidence, so far as the parties are concerned the matter is closed. Section 35 is in the nature of a penal provision and has far-reaching effects. Parties to a litigation, where such a controversy is raised, have to be circumspect and the party challenging the admissibility of the document has to be alert to see that the document is not admitted in evidence by the Court. The Court has to judicially determine the matter as soon as the document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case. The record in this case discloses the fact that the hundis were marked as Exs. P.1 and P.2 and bore the endorsement `admitted in evidence' under the signature of the Court. It is not, therefore, one of those cases where a document has been inadvertently admitted, without the Court applying its mind to the question of its admissibility. Once a document has been marked as an exhibit in the case and the trial court proceeded all along on the footing that the document was an exhibit in the case and has been used by the parties in examination and cross-examination of their witnesses, S. 36 of the Stamp Act comes into operation. Once a document had been admitted in evidence, as aforesaid, it is not open either to the Trial Court itself or to a Court of Appeal or revision to go behind that order. Such an order is not one of those judicial orders which are liable to be reviewed or revised by the same court or a court of superior jurisdiction. (emphasis supplied)
20. Subsequently, in the case of Barium Chemicals Ltd. (supra), the aforesaid position has been further reaffirmed in paragraph nos.3 and 4 which are as follow:
3.The order of the High Court does not conform to the requirements of Sections 35 and 36 of the Stamp Act. A document which is not duly stamped and is also not registered though required to be registered can be admitted in evidence for collateral purposes under proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act but so far as the stamp duty is concerned, if the document is not duly stamped it has to be dealt with under Section 35 of the Stamp Act before it is admitted in evidence failing which by virtue of Section 36, admission of document in evidence cannot be questioned at any later stage.(emphasis supplied)
4.The appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored.
21. Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act, which was under consideration in the case of Javer Chand, is pari-materia to Section 40 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998. Section 40 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998 runs as follows:-
40.Admission of instrument, where not to be questioned:-Where an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not; except as provided in section 71, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. (emphasis supplied)
22. On consideration of the aforesaid judgments, it is now well settled that an unregistered sale deed/ agreement to sell is admissible in evidence in a civil suit for specific performance on account of proviso to Section 49 of the Act of 1908. As regard the document is insufficiently stamped, it is also well settled that when the document is exhibited and the entire trial has proceeded all along on the footing that the document was an exhibit in the case and has been used by the parties in examination and cross examination of their witnesses, then Section 40 of the Stamp Act, 1998 comes into operation and it is not open to be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceedings on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. The said principle is equally applicable to the appellate court which is exercising the same jurisdiction of the trial court. The defendant appellant is debarred from taking such an objection at any stage of the same suit or in the present appeal on this ground, therefore, agreement to sell (Ex.2) has rightly been admitted by the trial court in evidence.
23. Now the question arises is whether execution of the agreement to sell dated 16.11.2006 (Ex.2) is proved or not. On consideration of the evidence of PW.1 Smt. Deepshikha Garg, PW.2 Naresh Goyal, DW.1 Jagdish Meena and DW.2 Ganesh Narain Meena as well as the documents on record, this court is of the view that the minor contradiction between the evidence of PW.1 Smt. Deepshikha Garg and PW.2 Naresh Goyal with regard to the fact of presence of the parties before the Notary Public and further non-examination of Notary Public will not disprove the said document, more particularly when the defendant appellant, in his evidence, has admitted his signature on page Nos.1 and 2 of the document. As regards page no.3 of the document also, he has not specifically denied his signature and further he has also not referred the fact as to from where the plaintiff respondent has obtained his photograph as well as explained the fact that the rent receipts are not usually given on a stamp. A notice was also sent to the defendant appellant, therefore, the trial court has committed no error in holding that execution of agreement to sell dated 16.11.2006 (Ex.2) has been proved and in deciding Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff respondent and against the defendant appellant.
24. Thus, this Court is of the view that the finding of the trial court is based on oral as well as documentary evidence available on record supported by the law and is not to be interfered with by this Court as the trial court has not committed any error in giving said finding on Issue No.1.
Issue No.2:
25. Sofar as the finding on issue no.2 is concerned, the trial court has placed reliance on Ex.4 the notice published in the `Rajasthan Patrika' dated 6th January, 2007 and further the notice dated 7th January, 2008 (Ex.5) which, according to the plaintiff, has been sent at the correct address of the defendant-appellant. Both these documents clearly reveals the intention of the plaintiff respondent to show her readiness and willingness to perform her part of agreement and to execute the sale deed. Thus, the trial court has committed no error on facts and law while deciding Issue No.2 in favour of the plaintiff respondent.
Issue No.3:
26. The burden to prove Issue No.3 was on the defendant appellant and from the documents and evidence available on record, it is clear that he has not been able to prove this fact as to how and in what manner the agreement to sell (Ex.2) is forged one. He has admitted his signature on page nos.1 and 2 and has also not denied his signature on page no.3 of it. Otherwise also, he has not taken any action against the plaintiff respondent by lodging FIR against her when the said agreement came to his knowledge. Therefore, the fact that the agreement to sell (Ex.2) is forged, has not been proved by the defendant appellant.
Issue No.4:
27. Issue no.4 relates to valuation of the civil suit. The defendant has referred the fact that the present market value of the property in dispute is Rupees One Crore but has not produced any documentary evidence on the said issue. On the other hand, the plaintiff respondent has placed reliance on Ex.7 the DLC rates of the area existed on 20.7.2005 which was @ Rs.8,500/- per square meter. Therefore, the agreement to sell for Rs. 25 Lacs cannot be said to be undervalued. As regards the issue regarding considerable increase in the price of the property in question, the Supreme Court in the case of Laxman Tatyaba Kankate & Anr. (supra) has held that considerable increase in the price of the property in question is not a bar for passing a decree in the civil suit for specific performance. The relevant part of paragraph 17 of the judgment in the aforesaid case is as follows:-
17. It was contended on behalf of th appellants that there has been considerable increase in the price of the land in question. Though that may be true, it cannot be ground for denying the decree of specific performance to the respondent....
28. Thus, the finding of the trial court on Issue No.4 that sufficient court fee has been paid is based on the evidence available on record as well as the settled legal position and, therefore, requires no interference by this Court.
29. Issue No.5 relates to the relief. The trial court after consideration of Issue Nos. 1 and 2, which have been decided in favour of the plaintiff respondent and further Issue Nos. 3 and 4, which have been decided against the defendant-appellant has decreed the suit of the plaintiff respondent for specific performance of the contract while granting the relief and has rightly decreed the suit for specific performance.
30. Consequently, the first appeal is, dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 12.4.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Suit No.102/2008 for specific performance and permanent injunction is, affirmed.
(PREM SHANKER ASOPA)J. Bairwa all corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed Kailash Chandra Bairwa Sr.P.A.