Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: antedated document in Sheo Shankar Kumar Khetan vs Name Not Known, Widow Of Late Ambika ... on 5 September, 2007Matching Fragments
15. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the respective parties, the learned trial court decreed the suit on contest with costs by the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.06.1991 after arriving at the following findings on the issues involved in the case:
(i) The unregistered agreement for sale (Bai Beyana) dated 28.10.1986 (Ext.A) said to have been executed by defendant No. 3, is an antedated document prepared by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 after presentation of the sale deed by the plaintiffs for registration on 28.01.1988.
(vii) From the perusal of execution portion of the sale-deeds (Exts.'B' series), it is crystal clear to the naked eye that the amounts and dates were left blank, which were filled up later on in a different pen and writing.
(viii) Deed of Dai Beyana (Ext.A) and six sale-deeds (Ext. B series) of defendants No. 1 and 2 executed by defendant No. 3 were antedated documents induced by threat and coercion to defendant No. 3 and are without consideration.
(ix) Claim of contesting defendants that three tenants were ousted by the plaintiffs is not supported by the persons, who are alleged to have been ousted and hence the execution of Kiraynama and payment of rent on receipts are unilateral acts and documents of defendants No. 1 and 2 for the purpose of creating evidence for the instant suit.
(c) Furthermore Ext.S is said to be a legal notice dated 16.01.1988 sent on behalf of defendants No. 1 and 2 to defendants No. 3 and 4, whereas, Ext. T is said to be the Power of Attorney, which were alleged to have been sent by registered post and registration receipt is Ext. Z. But from Ext. Z it appears that very cunningly the date and year of seal given on that envelope has been torn. Furthermore there was no pleading of the contesting defendant regarding any such notice and the said Exhibits S, T and Z were filed by the said defendant only after the evidence of the plaintiff was closed. Therefore, there is nothing to show that the said notice was actually sent on that date, rather it clearly shows that the defendant-appellant was fabricating antedated documents after 28.01.1988. In the said circumstance, it is quite apparent that the deed of agreement (Ext.A) was antedated and was prepared subsequently only to have a march over the sale-deed of the plaintiffs executed Page 2946 on 18.01.1988 (Ext.1) by defendants No. 3 and 4 in favour of the plaintiffs, which was presented for registration on 28.01.1988 (Ext.4) before the Sub-Registrar.
(c) It has already been found that the deed had been executed by defendant No. 3, who is the admitted owner, and defendant No. 4 in favour of the plaintiffs without any coercion, illegality and fraud and that the documents relied upon by the defendant-appellant were antedated, illegal and void. From the pleadings and evidence, it is clearly found that the plaintiff-respondents have throughout been and are still ready and willing to perform their part of the terms of the deed in question, hence defendant No. 3 is liable to accept the balance consideration money and admit the execution of sale-deed of the plaintiffs dated 18.01.1988 (Ext.1) which has been submitted for registration in Jehanabad Registry Office on 28.01.1988 (Ext.4) and the plaintiff-respondents are entitled to a decree for specific performance of contract. In case of the failure of defendant No. 3 the same has to be done through other processes prescribed in law. Since plaintiff-respondents are already in possession of the suit premises, no order for delivery of possession is required.