Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. We take up for consideration the question as to whether Ex. A-2 is genuine and there was an agreement for sale as contended by the plaintiff. Several circumstances have been pointed out by learned Counsel for the respondents which create a grave suspicion as to the genuineness of the agreement. Ex. A-2 comprises of six stamp papers, five of them being for 50 paise each and one 25 paise. The fifty paise stamp papers have been purchased from one R.K. Nagaraja Rao, stamp vendor, Karur. The name of the person who purchased the stamps has not been mentioned in the stamp paper. We, however, find the name of one Subramanian in rubber stamp at the top of each stamp paper. It is not clear whether it is the name of the purchaser or name of somebody else. It is quite likely that Subramanian was the purchaser and instead of writing his name in ink, his rubber stamp was utilised and his name was engrossed on the stamp paper with the aid of the rubber stamp. The sixth stamp paper is purchased from one P. Kumar, stamp vendor in Dharmapuri and the name of the purchaser is one Rajendran of Dharmapuri. That was purchased on 7.2.1977, while all the other stamp papers were purchased on 2.3.1977. There is no explanation in the evidence as to why the stamp papers were purchased in Karur and Dharmapuri on some earlier dates. The evidence of P.W. 2 who is admittedly a broker and who according to P.W. 1 bought the stamp papers and got the document typed, is to the effect that he purchased the stamp papers on 9.3.1977, the date which the document bears. According to him, he was sent for by the first defendant to his house on 9.3.1977 at 9 a.m. and when he went there he saw P.W. 1 and the first defendant sitting together. He was told that the first defendant agreed for selling the house to the plaintiff and they wanted an agreement to be prepared. Exs. A-24 and A-25 were handed over to him and he was asked to prepare a draft of the document. He went to his house, prepared a draft and brought it back after getting it typed. There is no explanation in his evidence as to how the stamp papers were purchased such earlier and in different places other than Salem, where the parties were living. P.W. 1 has been cross-examined, on these aspects of the matter in extenso. According to his evidence, there were talks about a week prior to Ex. A-2 and they were concluded on that day. Nobody was present at the time of the talks, on 9.3.1977 stamp papers were purchased by P.W. 2 and they were purchased in the office of the Sub Registrar at Shewapattai, Salem. According to him, they were purchased at about 12 noon on that date and he did not know who typed the document. Thus, his evidence also does not explain as to how the stamp papers were purchased in Karur and Dharmapuri long prior to the date of Ex. A-2.

13. The above suspicious circumstances not having been explained by P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, the case of the defendants gets probabilised. The agreement is said to have taken place on 9.3.1977 as per Ex. A-1. The next document which has come into existence is Ex. A-1 dated 27.1.1978 a letter written by the plaintiff to the first defendant. In between there is no correspondence between the two parties. In that letter, the plaintiff has merely stated that there has been a long lapse of time after the agreement relating to the house. The letter docs not say clearly that it was a sale agreement. The other details of the agreement are also not mentioned. Of course, by itself the letter may not create any suspicion. But, taking along with the other circumstances already referred to the contention of learned Counsel for the respondents is well founded in that the plaintiff would have certainly given the details of the agreement in that letter which is written nearly ten months after the date of Ex. A-2. The reaction of the first defendant was immediate. It should be noted that Ex. A-1 was sent by registered post. There was no occasion for the plaintiff to send a registered letter to the first defendant when there is nothing on record to show that the relationship between the parties had become strained between 9.3.1977 and 27.1.1978. If everything was normal, one would expect the plaintiff to approach the first defendant orally or send a letter by ordinary post. Both are residing in the same street, viz. Bangala Street. While the plaintiff was residing in Door No. 35, the first defendant was residing in Door No. 22. There is nothing in the evidence of P.W. 1 to explain the necessity for sending the letter by registered post on 27.1.1978. In that context, the immediate reaction of the first defendant in sending a reply under Ex. A-19, dated 31.1.1978 acquires much significance. In that letter, the first defendant had stated very clearly that the plaintiff had agreed to take a mortgage and prepare an agreement for such a mortgage. The first defendant has also stated that in spite of several attempts made by him, he could not meet the plaintiff and he had already signed all the papers in the places shown by the plaintiff. He has also referred to the receipt of Rs. 18,000 by way of advance and the handing over of all the title deeds to the plaintiff at that time. He has called upon the plaintiff to send the draft document for mortgage immediately. In reply thereto, the plaintiff sent a lawyer's notice in Ex. A-16, dated 20.2.1978. No doubt in that notice he has stated his own case and that is denied in Ex. A-17, dated 4.3.1978. Then followed the present suit.