Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The suit came to be resisted by the defendants. Defendant no. 1 filed his written statement at Exh. 30. It was contended by the defendant that the suit was false and that they had never executed any agreement of sale on 24th March, 1980 in favour of the plaintiffs. He also denied that till the time the document was executed, the plaintiffs had already paid a sum of Rs. 27,000/=. He had further denied that there was any oral contract entered into between the plaintiffs and defendants nos. 1 and 2 whereby it was agreed to sell the suit lands to them by defendants by charging price of Rs. 10,000/= per Guntha. He had further contended that the entire story with regard to payments made on different dates and total amount of Rs. 72,200/- having been paid to defendants nos. 1 and 2 or the power of attorney holder of defendant no. 2 was concocted and false and the receipts have been fabricated by committing forgery. It is further stated by defendant no. 1 that the document dated 24th March, 1980 purporting to be an agreement to sell is nothing but a glaring instance of forgery. According to him, the plaintiffs have fabricated these documents by forging the signatures of the defendants with a view to grab the property of defendants nos. 1 and 2. It is his say that so far payment of Rs. 8,000/= is concerned, it was paid to the defendants to meet the expenses incurred by them for the litigations pending in revenue Court and this Court in respect of the suit land and it was also agreed by defendants nos. 1 and 2 to repay the said amount with interest. It is further stated that on 10th April, 1980 defendants have paid a sum of Rs. 9,000/= i.e. Rs. 8,000/= towards principal amount and Rs. 1,000/= by way of interest to the plaintiffs, for which a writing was executed on the stamp paper of Rs. 10/=. It was further stated that since the entire claim of the plaintiffs is based on a forged document, no reliefs can be granted to them. It was, therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed with costs and they may be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/= for causing unnecessary harassment to the defendants.

10. Mr. H.M. Parikh has broadly advanced the following submissions :-

10.1. He has submitted that the entire suit is based on the forged document i.e. Exh. 207 and, therefore, no decree of specific performance of the contract can be passed in favour of the plaintiffs. He has advanced several circumstances, which according to him, would substantiate his say regarding the forgery of the document. We will deal with the same at the time when we discuss this submission in the course of the judgment. He has further submitted that even the receipts produced at Exhs. 208 to 230 are false and they have been fabricated by the plaintiffs to show that they have made part payment of the agreed consideration. He has further submitted that if the matter is closely scrutinised, it would clearly show that plaintiff no. 2, who also worked as consultant to defendant no. 2, has taken the disadvantage of his position and thereby he has tried to usurp the land by creating a forged document. He has also submitted that the story of plaintiffs having made payment of different amounts on different dates, which have been detailed out in the plaint, is totally false. According to him, Rs. 8,000/= was paid by plaintiffs in the year 1979 to defendants for meeting the expenses incurred by them in the litigations pertaining to the agricultural lands held by them in the revenue Court and this Court. That amount was borrowed by defendants nos. 1 and 2 on the specific understanding that they would have to pay interest thereon. Ultimately, the said amount has been repaid together with interest. He has also submitted that originally the document in question was executed by 3 persons on the side of the plaintiffs i.e. plaintiffs nos. 1 and 2 and one Kiritbhai Vyas, whose name has been deleted from the document on the next day. No decree of specific performance, therefore, can be granted in favour of the plaintiffs on such altered document. According to Mr. Parikh, the plaintiffs had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 314 of 1981, which was subsequently withdrawn with the permission of the Court. However, the subsequent suit has not been filed in compliance with the condition imposed by the Civil Court while permitting the withdrawal of earlier suit. Hence, the present suit is barred by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has submitted that the lands in question were new tenure lands and, therefore, before entering into any transaction of sale, permission of the Collector was required to be obtained, which in the present case has not been obtained and, therefore, it is against the provisions of section 43 of the Tenancy Act. The agreement, therefore, would be in contravention of section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. Similarly, in respect of the suit land, at the time the document in question Exh. 207 was executed, no permission as required under Sections 43 and 63 of the Tenancy Act was obtained and, therefore, also the transaction was in contravention of section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. He has submitted that evidence of plaintiff no. 2 shows that there was partnership between plaintiff no. 1 and plaintiff no. 2. However, partnership is not registered and no suit can be entertained at the instance of unregistered partnership. Finally he has submitted that the trial Court had wrongly closed the evidence of defendants nos. 1 and 2. Moreover, defendant no. 2 had submitted application at Exh. 281 seeking permission to lead the evidence was not at all at a belated stage. Therefore, it ought to have been granted by the trial Court to enable him to substantiate his case by leading cogent evidence. By rejection of the said application by the trial Court grave prejudice has been caused to defendants nos. 1 and 2. He, therefore, submitted that even though the said order of rejection was not challenged in Revision Application before this Court, the appellants were entitled to agitate this question in appeal in view of the provisions of section 105 read with section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure and this Court may redress the grievance of the appellants by remanding the matter to the trial Court to enable defendants nos. 1 and 2 to lead evidence. According to him, this appeal is, therefore, required to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court deserve to be quashed and set aside.

11.1. So far the first contention of Mr. Parikh regarding forgery of the document at Exh. 207 is concerned, he has drawn our attention to various documents contained in the record of the case. He has first focussed our attention on Exh. 207 itself and has tried to submit that this document is hand written and it has been prepared by plaintiff no. 2. He has also drawn our attention to the evidence of plaintiff no. 2 wherein it has been stated by him that normally the work of documentation of the transactions is not done by him but he gets it done through outside agency. Mr. Parikh, therefore, submitted that there is no need for plaintiff no. 2 to prepare this document. This contention cannot be accepted because plaintiff no. 2 has categorically stated in his evidence that because of the shortage of time, he had to do this work by himself. We do not find anything unusual. It is quite possible that plaintiff no. 2, who himself is in the business of developing the immovable properties, would be well versed in preparing documents and if he had done it on account of shortage of time, there was no reason to disbelieve him.

12. So far submissions of Mr. Parikh challenging the veracity of document Exh. 207 on the ground that the interpolations and forgery of the signatures of defendant no. 1 and power of attorney holder of defendant no. 2 have been made and that even when defendant no. 2 was present, he has not signed the document, etc. are concerned, we are not at all impressed by the same because plaintiff no. 2 has entered the witness box and has given evidence on oath wherein he has stated facts regarding execution of document by defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 through his power of attorney holder. Not only that, he has also examined Ranchhodbhai Chhaganbhai at Exh. 266, who has confirmed the fact of the execution of the document by defendant no. 1 and power of attorney holder of defendant no. 2 on his behalf i.e. defendant no. 2. Ranchhodbhai is the person who has purchased the stamp on which Exh. 207 has been executed. Perusal of Exh. 207 would show that the same has been purchased by Ranchhodbhai Chhaganbhai on behalf of Bijalbhai Devjibhai i.e. plaintiff no. 1 on 21st March, 1980. This document also shows the name of attesting witness and at serial no. 1 this witness has appended his signature. Thus, this document has been executed in the presence of Ranchhodbhai. He states in his evidence that Exh. 207 was signed by other persons in his presence. He has also stated that he knew defendants nos. 1 and 2 as they were staying in his neighbourhood. Evidence of both these witnesses, viz. plaintiff no. 2 and Ranchhodbhai Chhaganbhai is very clear that document was duly signed by defendant no. 1 and power of attorney holder of defendant no. 2 and plaintiffs nos. 1 and 2 and also by two attesting witnesses, one of them being Ranchhodbhai Chhaganbhai. As against this, neither defendant no. 1 nor defendant no. 2 has entered into the witness box and given evidence challenging this fact. Not only that, no other witness has been examined by either of the two defendants to substantiate their say that the document was forged one. In absence of any challenge to the factum of execution of this document, it has to be accepted.