Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

29. P.W-3 the Superintendent of Police, has deposed that he knows about Ex.P-1 which is an agreement of sale executed by the deceased first defendant in fevour of deceased plaintiff. According to him, the said agreement was executed on 18.11.1978. He identifies Ex.P- 1. He says that he is one of the witnesses to Ex.P-1. He identifies his signature of Ex. P-1(a). He further admits that Ex.P-1 was executed at Bellahalli school building before the village panchayathdaras. The pecnchayath Chairman and others such as document write and witnesses have signed Ex.P-1. He identified the signature of the deceased defendant which is at Ex.P-1(a). He admits that there are several complaints, counter complaints between the deceased plaintiff and the defendant. Criminal cases were registered against the defendant and he has deposed that plaintiff was in prossession of the property during his period. In cross examination he has deposed that he do not remember whether there was any complaint by any of the parties on the data of execution of Ex.P-1. According to him Bellahalli was a factuious village. In his routine course, he visited that village on that day. He was in uniform. He had been to that village on that day on his official duty. He do not remember as to whether he had gone alone or along with his staff on that day. There was no prior intimation to him about the panchayath. When he went there, the panchayath had already commenced. Before he went to the spot, he was not aware of the proceedings of the panohayath. The document was written only after he went there. The panchayathdars who wane present at that time gave instructions to draft the Agreement. It was written on Sunday. There were no talks about execution of another document on that day itself. Gulzar Ali who was one of the signatory to the agreement struck of his signature and returned back as he has name urgent work in the temple. He was not present till the completion of the patiduayath. He had signed the document after it was drafted. He do not know whether the plaintiff had signed the agreement or not. The President of the pandiayath was the first signatory to the document. The first defendment has signed as a second witness to the document. After the signature of the panchayathdars, the first defendant has signed the document. Syed Gulzar Ali, Pyaru Sab, Syed Akbar Ali and his brother Mehamood, Vice President-Nagaraju and the document writer have also signed on the document. The said Nagaraju drfted the agreetment as per Ex.P-1. Regarding payment of amount is concerned, it was decided in his pretience only. On the date of agreement itself, money was brought from the house and paid to the defendant. He do not remember who had identified the LTM of P.W.2. He do not know the experience of Nagaraj in deed writing who had drafted Ex.P-1. There were no notes prepared earlier and Straight away the agreement was drafted on a white paper as per the decisions of the panchayathars. PW-2 came to the spot after he reached there.

31. P.W-5 identifies Ex.P-1 and says that he was present when it was executed. The plaintiff and his children Govindaraj, Muniawamappa, Namjundappa, Nagaraj, hinself and many villagers were assembled at that time. Defendant and his children executed P-1 in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant had agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff. The defendant had agreed to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within 15 days. The deceased defendant had affixed his signature at Ex.P-1 in his presence which is at ExP-1(a). The children of the defendant also have signed the said document. According to him, the plaintiff had kept ready the drafted sale deed, but the defendant failed to execute the registered sale deed. The original sale deed was prepared near Taluk Office. He was present on that day. The defendant was present and he gave instructions for drafting the original sale deed. On that day, the children of the first defendant were not present.

32. The reason for setting out the evidence of these witnesses on which the plaintiff relies on is only to find out whether the Courts below who are the final Courts of facts have carefully considered these oral evidence on record. From the aforesaid oral evidence it is clear that the plaintiff has not stated in what circumstances, how and why the Panchayath was convened. He is unable to identify the signature in Ex P-1, since he do not know how to read and write. According to him the Secretary, Venkatarao, drafted the agreement as well as the sale deed. From the evidence of P.W-2, it ia clear that he was not a Panchayathar invited by the plaintiff find the first defendant. In fact, he was not aware of the pandhayath, He was only a curious on looker who went there be knew what is happening, as he had heard that the plaintiff and the first defendant had quarried and the police had visited the villege and therefore he is not the panchayathdar. His further evidence discloses that on the date of the panchayth, the Sub-Inspector was at the spot because of the complaint lodged against the first defendant. That explain his presence, not as a panchayathdar. On that day, no other document other than Ex.P-1 came to be executed and after the panchayath, everyone went back to their houses. It is clear that the Sub-Inspector- P.W-3 was also net the panchayathdar. He had no notice of the panchayath. He went to that village for his official work and than he came to know about the panchayath and then he want to the place where panchayath was taking place and he has also attested Ex.P-1. He says that Ex.P-1 is the only document which was drafted on that day. However, according to him the agreement was drafted by Nagaraj and not Venkartarao, the Secretary. The other two witness P.Ws.- 4 and 5 also state that it is Nagaraj who wrote the agreement in the primary school of Belahalli and it is children of the plaintiff who had invited him to the Panchayath. A reading of the aforesaid evidence makes it clear the except P.Ws-4 and 5, the other three witness were not aware of the panehayath at all, let alone they being requested to be the panchayathdars. The plaintiff it unable to identify the signature of any one on Ex P-1. If his evidence is to be believed according to him, the document is drafted by the village accountant by name venkatarao. According to other witnesses it is drafted by the scribe by name Nagaraju. Their evidence do not disclose who gave instruction to the scribe to draft. Their evidence do not disclose the discussion which took place in the panchayath, what was the rival contentions, what was the agreement entered into and in what content that agreement was reduced into writing. In fact, nobody speaks about the rival contentions between the parties at all. All of them admit the pendency of civil litigation, pendency of criminal case and police complaints between the parties. Before the validity of the agreement can be gone into, as it is the specific case of the plaintiff that in order to resolve the dispute between the parties, the panchayath was convened and in the panchayath, the dispute was resolved and then this agreement came into exurtence. If the evidence of these witnesses taken as a whole, it do not establish that as contended by the plaintiff that any penchayath was convened by the well withers interested in both the parties, any discussion took place, what was the dispute, what was the decision of the Panchayathdars, and whether parties agreed to such desecration and then excludes Ex.P-1, the alleged agreement of sale. On the controcy, P.Ws-2 and 3 were not aware of the panchayath, they came to the parichatyath on that day oar some other purpose and they were curious on-lookers. But at the time of drafting of Ex.P-1, they were present find attested the document P. W 4 saysthat he was requested to be present by the plaintiff and his children. P.W-5 saya that he was requested to be present by the first defendant and his children. Therefore, it is clear that this evience of five witnesses do not establish the case of the plaintiff that the well wishers interested in perties convened the panchayath to resolve the dispute. The discrepancy in the evedence of each one of the witness is too wide to be ignored. Not one witness corroborates the evidence of another witness. It is full of inconsistency. The evidence f none of these witnesses do infuse confidence which can be acted upon by the Court. The courts below has clearly misread the evidence, did not notice the glaring contradictions in the evidence are influenced by inconsequential matters, ignored the weight of preponderating circumstance and recorded finding which has no basis in any legal evidence. Therefore, the evidence of these witness neither establishes the convening of the panchayath, resolution of the dispute in the panchayath or excuution of Ex.P-1 in the said panchauyath. It is to be noticied here that Ex.P-1, is not a simple agreement of sasle entered into between the parties voluntarily where one party is interested in selling his property and the other interested in purchasing the property, after mutual discussion and negotiation agreed on a price and then reduce the terms in writing. It is a case of want of consensus ad-idem. Similiary execution of a document does not mean signing of a document. The word "execution" has a difinite connotation in law. The person signing the document must be aware of the contents of document and consciously sign the document in token of acceptance of the contents of the said document. If the execution of a dicument is denied it is for the party who alleges the due execution to prove by acceptable evidence that the executant affixed his signature to the document after being aware of the contents of the document and in token of its acceptance so as to bind him. When it is stated that the executant executed an agreement of sale it must be shown that the executant had agreed to sell the property end in token of acceptance of such agreement he has affixed his signature on the said agreement of sell. The evidence on record do not disclose that the defendant affixed his signature to the the suit document agreeing to sell the schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs or in view of the decision of Panchayadars or on the basis of what was agreed to in the said Panchayat. Therfore the finding of the courts below that the agreement of sale is duly executed by the first defendant, as it bears his signature on the document is illegal.