Jharkhand High Court
Hiralal Keshari vs Anant Singh Alias Jattu Singh on 27 November, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2025:JHHC:35553
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 391 of 2003
Hiralal Keshari, son of Basuki Prasad Keshari, resident of
Baijnathpur, Dumka Road, P.O. - Jhausagarhi, P.S. Deoghar,
District Deoghar
... ... Plaintiff/Respondent/Appellant
Versus
1. Anant Singh alias Jattu Singh, son of late Dhanu Singh
(Deleted v.o.d. 16.10.2019)
2. Govind Singh, son of Anant Singh alias Jattu Singh
3. Gautam Kumar Singh, son of Anant Singh alias Jattu Singh;
4. Uttam Kumar Singh, son of Anant Singh alias Jattu Singh
5. Ratan Singh, son of Anant Singh alias, Jattu Singh
All are residents of village Simultala, P.O. Simultala, P.S.
Simultala, District Jamui
6. Sanjay Kumar Singh, son of late Sada Nand Singh, resident of
village Chandpura, P.S. + P.O. Sangrampur, District Munger,
(Bihar)
At present Advocate, District Bar Association Building,
Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar Town and District - Deoghar,
Jharkhand
... ... Defendants/appellant/respondents
7. Narandara Raut @ Narendra Nath Rao,
8. Fago Raut @ Dwijendra Kumar Jaiswal
Both sons of Nalmani Jaiswal of Jalsar, Road Deoghar, P.O.
Deoghar, P.S. Deoghar District - Deoghar (Jharkhand)
... ... Defendants/Respondents/Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajiv N. Prasad, Advocate
: Mr. Nilendu Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.6 : Mr. Arvind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate
: Mr. Shambhu Nath Tiwari, Advocate
: Ms. Vinita Prakash, Advocate
---
CAV on 07.08.2025 Pronounced on 27.11.2025
This Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the
judgment dated 26.04.2003 and the decree signed on 13.05.2003 by
learned District Judge, Deoghar in Title Appeal No.20 of 2002 and
Title Appeal No.18 of 2002, whereby the learned appellate court has
allowed the said appeals and has set aside the judgement and decree
dated 07.10.2002 passed by learned Sub-ordinate Judge VI, Deoghar
2025:JHHC:35553
in Title Suit No.677 of 1997. The trial court had decreed the suit and
the 1st appellate court has reversed the judgement.
2. The defendant 1st party and defendant no.4 (defendant 3rd party)
together had filed Title Appeal No.20 of 2002 and the defendant 2nd
party had filed Title Appeal No.18 of 2002. The suit was decreed; the
appeals were allowed and accordingly the plaintiff is the appellant
before this Court.
3. The suit was filed seeking specific performance of agreement of
sale dated 13.03.1997 (Exhibit-1) of immovable property and a for
declaration that the subsequent two sale deeds executed by the
defendant 1st party in favour of the original defendant 2nd party and
one Sanjay Singh [who was subsequently added as defendant no.4 in
the suit] with respect to the suit property vide sale deed no.2216 dated
24.09.1997 and sale deed no.2231 dated 27.09.1997 are bogus, sham
and illegal, invalid and void.
4. This Court has formulated the following substantial question of
law vide order dated 13.08.2004 as under:
"Whether the lower appellate Court has adopted a wrong
legal approach in setting aside and reversing the judgement
and decree of the trial Court?"
5. The title suit was filed for the following reliefs:
"(i) That a decree be passed for the specific performance of
contract dated 13.03.1997 directing the defendant 1 st party to
execute present and complete the sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff regarding the suit property on the basis of the
agreement dated 13.03.1997 before the sub-registrar at
Deoghar and if the defendant 1st party fails to complete the
sale, the sale be executed and completed through the agency of
the court.
(ii) for the cost of the suit.
(iii) for temporary and permanent injunction restraining the
defendant 1st party not to execute the sale deed in favour of the
2nd party and to restrain the defendant 2nd party & also any
other person.
(iv) for any other relief or reliefs to which the court deems fit
and proper.
2025:JHHC:35553
(v) for declaration that the aforesaid two sale deeds vide 2216
dated 24.09.1997 and 2231 dated 27.09.1997 are bogus, sham
and illegal, invalid and void.
(vi) for temporary and permanent injunction against the
defendants not to disturb the plaintiff in actual use and
physical possession of the plaintiff over the suit property."
6. The case of the plaintiff is as under: -
a. The suit premises was initially acquired by one Babulal Singh
who sold the same to his son's wife Soniya Kumari, wife of
Dhanu Singh, vide Sale Deed No.365 for the year 1933. Soniya
Kumari and her husband Dhanu Singh died leaving behind three
sons namely, Hira Singh, Anant Singh @ Jattu Singh and
Dashrath Singh, who inherited the suit property and continued
in possession.
b. Hira Singh and his wife though died issueless, they left behind
an adopted son namely Navin Singh;
c. Dashrath Singh left behind two sons namely Sanjai Singh @
Mangu Singh and Sanjiv Singh @ Shambhu Singh who sold
their 1/3rd share and interest in the suit premises to the plaintiff
for valuable consideration vide Sale Deed No.702 dated
21.03.1997 of the sub-Registry Office, Deoghar.
d. Anant Singh @ Jattu Singh, the defendant 1st party agreed to
sell his 1/3rd share and interest in the suit property to the
plaintiff for valuable consideration of Rs.25,000/-(Twenty five
thousand) only and having received payment of Rs.9,000/-(nine
thousand) as earnest amount executed an agreement for sale of
the suit property on 13.03.1997 in favour of the plaintiff and
thereby promised to complete the sale deed and execution and
registration of the same by the 12th day of March, 1998 A.D.
e. After agreement, the plaintiff requested the defendant 1st party
several time for completion of the sale deed but he evaded the
same on one plea or the other pretext. The defendant 1st party
having developed dishonest intention has been planning to sell
the suit premises in favour of the defendant 2nd party members
2025:JHHC:35553
in collusion and conspiracy with the defendant 2nd party
members, who were on enimical terms with the plaintiff.
f. It was asserted that the 1st party was liable to complete the sale
after receiving the balance amount Rs.16,000/- only and the
plaintiff was ready to pay the remaining consideration amount
to the defendant 1st party.
g. It was asserted that the defendant 1st party was liable to be
restrained from executing any kind of paper or document
inclusive the agreement and sale with regard to the suit property
in favour of anybody including the defendant 2nd party members
and the defendant 2nd party members were liable to be
restrained to purchase the suit property.
h. The suit was filed on 24.09.1997 seeking specific performance
of contract since the defendant 1st party was taking steps to sell
the suit property to defendant 2nd party. However, during the
pendency of the suit, the defendant 1st party and the defendant
2nd party being conscious of the filing of the present suit on
24.09.1997 hurriedly entered into a sham transaction and
executed and registered the alleged Sale deed no.2216 dated
24.03.1997 without any consideration money although they
have falsely shown the same as Rs.25,000/-. Anant Singh
alongwith his four sons namely 1. Govind Singh 2. Gotam
Singh 3. Utam Singh and 4. Ratan Singh although the four sons
of Anant Singh were not entitled to enter into the sale deed.
i. That similarly the defendant 1st party entered into another sham
transaction executed and registered another alleged sale deed
no.2231 dt. 27.09.1997 with regard to a portion of about 17'-0
X 10'-0" of the suit land in favour of one Sanjay Singh, son of
Sadanand Singh without any consideration amount although in
this sale deed also, it has been falsely shown as Rs.25,000/-.
j. Both the sale deeds were challenged to be bogus, illegal, invalid
and void by filing amendment which was allowed. Sanjay Singh
was added as defendant no.4 in the suit.
2025:JHHC:35553
7. The case of the defendant no.1 Anant Sigh @ Jattu Singh and
defendant nos.1(a), 1 (b), 1 (c) and 1 (d) namely Govind Singh,
Goutam Singh, Uttam Singh and Ratan Singh was as under: -
i. These defendants denied that the plaintiff was formerly holding
the suit premises with permission of Dasrath Singh and later, on
his own. It was asserted that Dasrath Singh had no legal right to
allow any body to hold the suit land as the suit premises belong
to these defendants and defendant no.1 Anant Singh had given
the suit land to the plaintiff on rent with the permission of the
remaining defendants [From l (a) to l (d)].
ii. These defendants denied the allegation that Hira Singh and his
wife left behind an adopted son Navin Singh. It was stated that
after the death of Hira Singh and his wife, their interest in the
suit land passed on to Hira Singh brother Jattu Singh alias
Anant Singh and Dasrath Singh, each of the two becoming
entitled to ½ share in the land left by Sonia Kumari and
consisting of Basouri Town plot Numbers 468, 469 and 470
contained in Jamabandi No.603 of Mouza Jhousagarhi (No.582)
measuring 1 (one) Katha and 10 (Ten) Dhurs situated within
Deoghar Municipality area.
iii. The allegation of an agreement executed by Anant Singh alias
Jattu Singh on 13.03.1997 agreeing to his 1/3rd share in the suit
land to the plaintiff was false. It was asserted that Anant Singh
alias Jattu Singh has never executed any agreement with the
plaintiff to sell 1/3rd share in the suit land and hence the alleged
signature of Jattu Singh on the alleged agreement dated
13.03.1997 is a forged one and it all amount to fabricating false
evidence to grab other properties and so the allegations made in
paragraph 6 of the plaint are denied as false.
iv. All the four sons of Anant Singh alias Jattu Singh, who have
been made party in the suit as Defendant Nos. l (a) to l (d) are
major and they have their shares and interest in the suit as heirs
of Sonia Devi, therefore, Defendant No. l alone viz., Anant
2025:JHHC:35553
Singh alias Jattu Singh had no legal right to execute any deed of
agreement to sell the suit land to plaintiff.
8. The defendant nos.2 and 3 in their written statement, inter alia
took the following points:-
A. They did not deny the claim of acquisition of the land from
Laxamipur Estate by Babulal Singh. However, they stated that
subsequently the property vested with Soniya Kumari, who died
leaving behind three sons namely Hira Singh, Jattu Singh alias
Anant Singh and Dasrath Singh; Hira Singh died without any
issue and consequent upon his death, his entire interest
devolved upon his surviving brother namely Jattu Singh and
Dasrath Singh in equal share and that being so Jattu Singh and
Dasrath Singh became entitled to 1/2 share each in the property
so left by Sonia Kumari comprising of Basuri land and building
within Town Plan Plot No.468, 469 and 470 J.B. No.603
bearing total area of 1 Katha 10 Dhur within mouza Jhousagarhi
formerly under Laxamipur Estate. The allegations of Hira Singh
having adopted a son namely Navin Singh was denied.
B. Jattu Singh was separate from his brother and inducted the
defendants as tenant in a part of his share for more than about
nineteen years as tenant comprising of 17'x8' and the defendants
had been in possession as tenant over the same under Jattu
Singh for the last more than nineteen years.
C. Jattu Singh being in need of money transferred the said portion
of his property which was in possession of the defendants as
tenant, for a valuable consideration of Rs. 25,000/- and
executed a Registered Deed of Sale in favour the defendant
being Sale Deed No.2216 dt.24.09.1997 against payment of said
consideration money of Rs.25,000/-. Jattu Singh while
transferring the said property was free from all encumbrances
admitting the possession of the defendants as tenants within the
said portion.
D. The defendants are the bonafide purchasers for value and
consideration and as such their title is well protected.
2025:JHHC:35553
E. The property so purchased by the defendants from Jattu Singh
comprises within plot nos.468, 469 and 470 under J.B. No.603
Halka Deoghar within Deoghar Municipality, Ward No.14
measuring a bit more or less 136 Sq. Ft. (17'x8') as delineated in
the map attached with the said Registered Deed of Sale and
shown in red colour of the map which the defendants are the
absolute owner and in possession of the same and the property
so purchased by the defendants is free from all encumbrances.
F. The entire story of agreement was denied and was stated to be
forged and fabricated.
9. As per the written statement, the case of defendant no.4, inter
alia, took the following points: -
a) Hira Singh and his wife died issueless and their interest
in the suit land passed on to Jattu Singh alias Anant
Singh and Dasrath Singh, each of the two becoming
entitled to ½ share in the land left behind by Sonia
Kumari and consisting of Basauri town plot numbers
468, 469 and 470 contained in Jamabandi No.603 of
mouza Jhousagarhi (No.582) measuring together 1 (one)
katha and 10 (ten) dhurs situated within Deoghar
Municipal Area, one katha measuring 1361 square feet.
b) Defendant no.4 has learnt that the aforesaid Anant Singh
alias Jattu Singh and his four sons (defendant nos.1, 1 (a),
1 (b), 1 (c ) & 1 (d) have sold away 136 square feet (17
feet x 8 feet) out of their half share in the suit land
(measuring together 1 ½ kathas or 2042 square feet
comprising town plot nos.468, 469 and 470, Jamabandi
no.603 situated at mouza Jhousagarhi (No.582), ward
no.14, Deoghar Municipal Area) to the defendants
Narendra Raut alias Narendra Nath Rao and Fago Raut
alias Dwijendra Kumar Jaiswal by dint of registered deed
of sale bearing no.2216 executed and registered on
24.09.1997.
2025:JHHC:35553
c) That after the execution of the sale-deed on 24.09.1997 in
favour of the defendant nos.2 and no.3, Anant Singh alias
Jattu Singh and his sons have transferred by sale deed
no.2231 on 27.09.1997, 170 square feet (17 feet x 10
feet) of land out of their share in the suit land to this
defendant no.4 Sanjay Kumar Singh for a consideration
of Rs.30,000/-.
d) That after the aforesaid sale, the right, title and interests
of the vendors (Jattu Singh & his sons) have passed on
and become vested in the purchaser (defendant no.4)
Sanjay Kumar Singh, who is now in possession of the
aforesaid 170 square feet of land.
e) The agreement allegedly executed between Jattu Singh
and the plaintiff Hiralal Keshari on 13.03.1997 is a
fabricated document, is evident from the fact that it does
not contain correct description of the land which is the
subject matter of that agreement; the alleged agreement-
document contains imaginary & incorrect plot no.406 at
one place and again plot numbers 406 and 479 at another
place, suggesting ignorance of the alleged executants of
the agreement and this error has naturally crept in
because of the haste and ignorance of the plaintiff
associated with the preparation of the forged agreement-
document.
f) That the aforesaid purchase of 170 square feet of land by
defendant no.4 from the defendants 1 to 1 (d) for
valuable consideration is a bonafide one and hence the
right, title and interest of the bonafide purchaser,
defendant no.4 Sanjay Kumar Singh is fully protected
under the provisions of law.
g) That the alleged document of agreement dated
13.03.1997 being a forged and fabricated document,
there remains no claim of the plaintiff for the specific
performance of any contract.
2025:JHHC:35553
Arguments for the Appellant.
10. The learned counsel submits that the entire dispute relates to a
portion of half kathas of land which stood jointly in the name of Hira
Singh, Dashrath Singh and Anant Singh. So far as Hira Singh and
Dashrath Singh are concerned, they have already transferred their
respective shares to the plaintiff by registered sale deed and there was
an agreement of sale with Anant Singh which is subject matter of
dispute in the present case. He has submitted that immediately after
entering into an agreement for sale, said Anant Singh and his sons sold
136 sq. ft by registered sale deed on 24.09.1997 to defendant 2 nd party
and 170 sq. ft. to defendant 3rd party vide registered sale deed dated
27.09.1997. The learned counsel submits that prior to the sale deed,
the suit was filed and the aforesaid two sale deeds executed in favour
of the 2nd party and 3rd party were challenged by way of amendment.
The amendment was allowed and the defendant 2nd party as well as 3rd
party had contested the suit.
11. The learned counsel submits that in order to prove the
agreement, the relevant witnesses were P.Ws.2, 3, 15 and 17. P.W. 2
was the typist, who had typed the agreement. He has also submitted
that so far as D.W. 2 is concerned, he was the son of Anant Singh and
he had also identified the signature of Anant Singh on the agreement.
He has further submitted that there was another exhibit namely
Exhibit - 6 which was the certified copy of the vakalatnama executed
by Anant Singh in another proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C on
the same date and the said vakalatnama was exhibited at the request of
the defendants and upon comparison, it was found that the signature
tallied with the signature of Anant Singh on the agreement.
12. The learned counsel submits that the learned trial court after
appreciating the materials found that the agreement was valid and
ultimately cancelled the two sale deeds dated 24.09.1997 and
27.09.1997 executed in favour of 2nd and 3rd party and directed for
specific performance of contract. The learned counsel has in particular
referred to the discussion of the learned trial court at paragraph 27 as
to how and in what manner, the signature of Anant Singh was
2025:JHHC:35553
compared and established in the agreement dated 13.03.1997 (Exhibit
1). The learned counsel has also submitted that although Anant Singh
was alive at the relevant point of time but he was never produced as
witness before the learned court. He has submitted that the written
statement was jointly filed by Anant Singh and his sons. He has
submitted that the sons of Anant Singh were made party in the
proceeding as the sons had sold the property to 2nd party and 3rd party
during the lifetime of Anant Singh.
13. The learned counsel has submitted that so far as the learned 1 st
appellate court is concerned, agreement was held to be void and the
learned 1st appellate court refused to grant any relief. The learned 1st
appellate court has upset the judgement of the learned trial court by
observing that the property having already been sold, no relief under
Specific Performance Act can be granted. The learned counsel submits
that the entire transaction vide registered sale deeds dated 24.09.1997
and 27.09.1997 were not only subject to lis pendens but also subject to
the agreement of sale dated 13.03.1997 (Exhibit - 1).
14. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
learned trial court considered each and every aspect of the matter
while allowing specific performance of contract in the present case
and while holding that the agreement was duly signed by Anant Singh
@ Jattu Singh, referred to the evidence of D.W. 2, his son. The
learned counsel has also submitted that Anant Singh never appeared
before the court for his evidence and did not put his signature at the
time of filing written statement.
15. The learned counsel has submitted that the learned 1st appellate
court while holding that the agreement did not have the signature of
Jattu Singh @ Anant Singh has referred to Exhibit - 6 which was
photocopy but has completely ignored the evidence of his son D.W. 2,
who had identified the signature of Jattu Singh during his evidence.
He has submitted that the evidence of D.W. 2 was enough to hold that
the signature of Jattu Singh on the agreement was duly proved and the
evidence of D.W. 2 has been, inter alia, considered by the learned trial
court to hold that the agreement contained the signature of Jattu Singh.
2025:JHHC:35553
He has also submitted that the signature of Jattu Singh was marked
Exhibit 1/A without objection.
Arguments of the Respondents.
16. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer
and submitted that the learned trial court has extensively relied upon
Exhibit - 6 while holding that the signature on the agreement was that
of Jattu Singh, but at the same time, the appellate court has considered
this aspect of the matter and found that Exhibit - 6 was photocopy of
the Vakalatnama filed in the proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C
and has completely disbelieved the same and found that such evidence
could not be taken into consideration for comparison of the signature.
The learned counsel has also submitted that the learned trial court had
referred to the evidence of D.W. 2 and had recorded that D.W. 2
admitted signature of his father on the agreement of sale Exhibit - 1
but from perusal of paragraph 6 of the evidence, he has clearly stated
that his father had not put his signature on the agreement and during
his cross-examination also in paragraph 40, D.W. 2 has clearly denied
the suggestion about entering into agreement by his father on
13.03.1997. The learned counsel submits that it was for the plaintiff to
prove the agreement but the plaintiff having failed to prove the
agreement, the specific performance could not be granted to enforce
the agreement itself.
Rejoinder arguments of the Appellant.
17. The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant in response, has
submitted that Exhibit - 6 was taken into evidence on admission and
insistence of the defendants and the D.W. 2 had admitted in paragraph
21 that the vakalatnama contained the signature of his father. He also
submits that it was at the instance of the respondents themselves the
signature was compared by the learned trial court and it was held that
the signature in Exhibit 6 was tallying with the signature in the
agreement. The learned counsel has also submitted that the signature
of Jattu Singh on the agreement was exhibited without any objection
and therefore the signature stood admitted by the defendants. He has
also submitted that the learned trial court has rightly drawn adverse
2025:JHHC:35553
inference for non-examination of Jattu Singh and has also taken note
of the fact that Jattu Singh had not even put his signature on the
written statement filed before the court so as to completely rule out the
scope of any comparison of signature. Moreover, Jattu Singh did not
appear as a witness before the learned court.
18. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the
judgement passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 5
SCC 796 (Guruswamy Nadar Vs. P. Lakshmi Ammal (dead) through
Lrs. And Ors.) paragraphs 14 and 15 and (2009) 13 SCC 229 (L.N.
Aswathama and Anr. Vs. P. Prakash) paragraph 8.
Findings of this Court
19. The suit property involved in this case is 1 Katha 10 dhur under
Jamabandi no.603, town plot nos.468, 469, and 470 in the district of
Deoghar. It is not in dispute that the property was initially acquired by
one Babulal Singh by way of settlement from Laxmipur estate and he
sold the same to his daughter-in-law, Sonia Kumari, wife of Dhanu
Singh, by registered sale dated 14.10.1933. Dhanu and Sonia died
leaving behind three sons, namely Hira Singh, Dashrath Singh, and
Anant Singh @ Jattu Singh. Hira Singh died issueless, and as per the
plaintiff, he had an adopted son, namely Navin Singh. Dasrath Singh
died, leaving behind two sons, namely Sanjay Singh @ Mangu Singh
and Sanjeev Singh @ Sambhu Singh, who sold 1/3rd interest in the suit
property to the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 07.04.1997 and
the alleged adopted son of Hira Singh, namely Navin Singh, also sold
1/3rd interest in the suit property to the plaintiff by registered sale deed
dated 21.02.1998. The plaintiff got his name mutated in the revenue
records, and rent receipts were issued in his favour.
20. So far as the remaining 1/3rd property is concerned, it was the
case of the plaintiff that the third brother, namely, Anant Singh @
Jattu Singh (defendant no.1) entered into agreement dated 13.03.1997
(Exhibit 1) in presence of witnesses (exhibit- 1/A to 1/O were the
signatures of the defendant no.1, plaintiff and other persons) with
defendant no.1 to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff for a
total consideration amount of Rs.25,000/- out of which Rs.9,000/- was
2025:JHHC:35553
paid as advance. The sale deed was to be executed by 12 th March 1998
upon payment of the remaining consideration amount. In spite of
repeated request, defendant no.1 did not execute the sale deed and was
planning to sell the suit property to defendant nos.2 and 3 (defendant
2nd party). In such circumstances, the suit for specific performance of
the agreement dated 13.03.1997 was filed on 24.09.1997 with a prayer
for injunction. The records of the trial court reveals that on the same
day on 24.09.1997 itself, notice was issued in the matter of injunction
and the defendants were directed to maintain status quo during the
pendency of the suit.
21. However, on 24.09.1997, the defendant 1st party (consisting of
the original defendant no.1 and his four sons who were later added as
party in the suit through amendment) sold 136 square feet of the suit
land to defendant 2nd party vide registered sale deed dated 24.09.1997
and further sold 170 square feet of the suit land to defendant 3 rd set
[defendant no.4] through registered sale deed dated 27.09.1997. Thus,
both the sale deeds were executed during the pendency of the suit.
Accordingly, the plaint was amended. Through the amendment, the
four sons of original defendant no.1 who had executed the aforesaid
sale deeds along with the original defendant no.1 and also the buyer of
one of the sale deeds, who was not party, were added as defendants
and the two sale deeds dated 24.09.1997 and 27.09.1997, were
challenged in the suit alleging that the sale deeds were sham
transactions and be declared null and void.
22. The defendant 1st party, 2nd party, and 3rd party primarily
contested the suit on the ground that the agreement of sale entered into
between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 dated 13.03.1997
(exhibit-1) was forged and fabricated and that defendant 2nd party and
defendant 3rd party had no notice of the agreement and were bonafide
purchasers for value. They also asserted that brother of defendant
no.1, Hira Singh died issueless and Navin Singh was not his adopted
son, who had sold 1/3rd interest in the entire property [1/3rd of the
entire property was the suit property] to the plaintiff by registered sale
deed dated 21.02.1998 and that defendant no.1 did not have the
2025:JHHC:35553
exclusive right to enter into agreement with respect to the suit property
as his sons were major at the relevant point of time. All the defendant
1st set, 2nd set and 3rd set filed their respective written statements.
23. The following issues were framed for consideration by the
learned trial court:
I. Is the suit as framed maintainable?
II. Has the plaintiff got cause of action for filing the
suit?
III. Is the suit barred by any provision of law?
IV. Was an unregistered agreement dt.13.3.97 executed
between the plaintiff and defendant Anant Singh @
Jattu Singh for the sale of his 1/3rd share in the suit-
property for a consideration of Rs.25,000/-after
receiving Rs.9000/-as an earnest money?
V. Is the plaintiff entitled to get the sale-deed registered
in his favour with respect to 1/3rd share of Jattu
Singh in the suit-property after paying the balance
consideration money of Rs. 16,000/-to the defendant
in specific performance of the contract and in the
event of the defendant No.1 failing to execute the
sale-deed can he get the sale-deed registered through
the Court after depositing the consideration money?
VI. Did the three sons of Sonia Kumari get the title and
possession over 1 and ½ Kattha of suit land after the
death of Sonia Kumari in equal shares?
VII. Is Navin Singh the adopted son of Hira Singh and
whether he is entitled to the 1/3rd share of Hira
Singh in the suit-property and, accordingly, he has
validly sold his 1/3rd share by registered sale-deed
in favour of the plaintiff?
VIII. Are the sons of Jattu Singh entitled to sell the suit-
property in the life time of Anant Singh?
IX. Is the registered sale-deed dt.24.9.97 executed by
Anant Singh @ Jattu Singh and his four sons Gobind
Singh, Gautam Singh, Uttam Singh and Ratan Singh
in favour of the defendant's 2nd set Narendra Nath
Rao and Dwijendra Kr. Jaiswal (Sic)with respect to
17ft.x8ft.in the suit-property is a valid document. or
the same is a sham, illegal and invalid document?
X. Is the registered sale-deed dt.27.9.97 executed by
Anant Singh and his four sons in favour of defendant
No.4 Sanjay Singh, a valid document or the same is
sham, illegal and invalid?
XI. Is the plaintiff entitled to get the relief of permanent
injunction with respect to the suit-property against
the defendants? and,
XII. Is the plaintiff entitled to any other relief?
2025:JHHC:35553
The trial court's findings.
24. While deciding issue no.7, the learned trial court held that the
sale deed dated 21.03.1997, executed by sons of Dashrath Singh
[brother of defendant no.1] in favour of the plaintiff and sale deed
dated 21.02.1998 executed by adopted son of Hira Singh [brother of
defendant no.1] to the plaintiff were not under challenge and held that
the said sale deeds were valid.
25. Thereafter, the learned trial court, took up issue nos.4 and 5,
which are the issues relating to validity of the unregistered agreement
of sale dated 13.03.1997 and the entitlement of the plaintiff with
regard to specific performance of contract. These two issues are the
bone of contention between the parties during the course of argument
of the present 2nd appeal. The learned trial court while considering
issue nos.4 and 5, considered the materials on record. The learned trial
court clearly held, on the basis of both documentary and oral
evidences, including the evidence of witnesses to the agreement that
the signature of defendant no.1 on the agreement was duly proved.
The learned trial court also recorded that though there are a few
contradictions in the statement of the witnesses, which were natural
and not material and considering the totality of evidence placed on
record was of the view that the agreement of sale entered into between
the plaintiff and defendant no.1 was duly executed and that the
agreement was binding on the parties. The learned court also recorded
that the suit was filed prior to the expiry of the period mentioned in
the agreement as defendant no.1 was taking steps for sale of the
property.
26. Thereafter, trial court took up issue nos.8 and 9, as to whether
the sons of defendant no.1, i.e. defendant no. 1 (a) to 1 (d) were
entitled to sell the suit property during the lifetime of defendant no.1,
and as to whether the registered sale deed dated 24.09.1997 executed
by defendant 1st party i.e. defendant nos. 1 (a) to 1 (d) was valid. The
trial court recorded that in view of the valid agreement of sale dated
13.03.1997, the defendants ought not to have executed the registered
2025:JHHC:35553
sale deed dated 24.09.1997 in favour of defendant 2nd party. The trial
court also recorded that defendant 2nd party, in his evidence, had stated
that he had gone to see the property, but the court recorded that
defendant 2nd party did not make any inquiry from the defendant 1 st
party and had he made such inquiry, the defendant no.1 would have
disclosed about the agreement of sale. During his evidence, this
witness has also stated that he had met defendant no.1 for the first
time in 1973 and lastly on 24.09.1997 and on the same day, the sale
deed was executed. The learned court held that the defendant 2 nd party
did not make due inquiry in connection with the property. The learned
court ultimately held that the sale deed executed in favour of
defendant 2nd party (defendant no.2 and 3) during the subsistence of
the agreement of sale with the plaintiff was null and void and declared
that the possession of defendant 2nd party (defendant nos.2 and 3) over
the suit property was illegal and they were bound to deliver the
property to the plaintiff.
27. Thereafter, the learned trial court took up issue no.10, in
connection with the validity of sale deed dated 27.09.1997, executed
by the defendant 1st party in favour of defendant 3rd party (defendant
no.4). The learned court held that since the agreement of sale (exhibit
1) was held to be valid, the defendant no.1 or his sons i.e. defendant
no.1 (a) to 1 (d) did not have the right to sell any portion of the suit
property. The court also recorded that though the sale deed, did not
contain the signature of defendant no.1, but the sale deed was
executed by taking power of attorney from the sons of defendant no.1
but power of attorney was not exhibited before the court and
defendant no.1 did not depose in spite of the fact that he was alive.
Ultimately, the court held that the defendant 1st party had no right to
sale any portion of the suit property which was covered by the
agreement of sale Exhibit 1, and therefore, the registered sale deed
dated 27.09.1997 was held to be null and void. Thereafter, the trial
court took up issue no.9 and issue no.11, and held that except 136
square feet of land, which was in possession of defendant 2nd party,
the remaining property was prima facie in possession of the plaintiff
2025:JHHC:35553
and observed that defendant nos.2 and 3 would hand over the
possession of 136 square feet to the plaintiff, and so far as the
remaining property is concerned, the defendants were restrained from
interfering with the possession of the plaintiff.
28. The learned court ultimately held that defendant 2 nd party and
defendant 3rd party (defendant no.4) have acted in a collusive manner
with defendant nos.1 (a) to 1 (d) and got the sale deed executed
although defendant no.1 had the exclusive right over the property.
29. Ultimately, the issue nos.1, 2, 3 and 12 were taken and it was
held that the plaintiff had a valid cause of action and was entitled for
specific performance of contract and defendant no.1 was directed to
execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, upon deposit
of balance consideration of Rs.16,000/- with respect to suit property
[one-third share of defendant no.1 which was the suit property] within
a period of one month and the sale deed dated 24.09.1997 executed in
favour of the defendant nos.2 and 3 and sale deed dated 27.09.1997 in
favour of defendant no.4 was held to be null and void and the
defendant 2nd party was directed to handover the property covered by
the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff immediately upon registration
of the sale deed pursuant to specific performance of contract.
The 1st appellate court's findings.
30. The learned 1st appellate court was of the view that only issue
involved in the case was whether the relief for specific performance
of contract could be granted to the plaintiff in the facts and
circumstances of this case. The court was of the view that the trial
court had framed many unnecessary issues with respect to the
admitted facts, which were not at all necessary to be decided, and
observed that issue nos.4 and 5 were the only important issues to be
decided in the case.
31. While considering issue nos. 4 and 5, which were relating to
the validity of the unregistered agreement of sale dated 13.03.1997
executed between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 for sale of his
one-third share upon payment of earnest money of Rs.9000/- out of
2025:JHHC:35553
total consideration amount of Rs.25000/- and as to whether the
plaintiff was entitled for specific performance of contract.
32. The learned 1st appellate court in paragraph 9 of the impugned
judgement inter alia recorded that PW2 is the typist who has proved
the agreement of sale dated 13.03.1997, which was marked Exhibit 1,
who had stated that the agreement of sale was typed by him which was
entered between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and he had also
stated that he had put signature on the agreement and both the plaintiff
and defendant no.1 had also put their signatures on the same and the
signature of P.W. 3 and Mohammad Maqsood was also there. He had
also stated that the agreement was drafted by Braj Bhushan Dubey, an
advocate, who was examined as PW16. This witness also identified
the typing and the signature of the agreement of sale, and had also
identified the signature of Braj Bhushan Dubey. The learned 1st
appellate court observed that this witness had not identified the
signature of either plaintiff or the original defendant no.1 and that he
had only stated that it contains the signature of these two persons also.
The court also observed that in his cross-examination this witness had
stated that he did not know defendant no.1. Further, the learned 1 st
appellate court examined the evidence of P.W.3, who identified the
signature of the plaintiff and defendant no.1 on each page of the
agreement and the signature were marked as Exhibit 1 series. PW3
was the attesting witness to the deed of agreement, and he had also
identified his own signature. The 1st appellate court recorded that in
his cross-examination this witness had stated that defendant no.1 lived
in Simultala and this witness denied the suggestion that the witness
did not know Jattu Singh (defendant no.1) and that the signature was
forged. The court also recorded that this witness did not know
Mohammad Maqsood, who is also an attesting witness to the sale
deed. Thereafter, the learned 1st appellate court recorded that PW15 is
Baikunth Pandey, who has also identified the signature of defendant
no.1 on the agreement of sale. He identified the agreement of sale,
which was earlier marked exhibit. However, in his cross-examination,
he stated that he had no concern with Jattu Singh (defendant no.1) and
2025:JHHC:35553
he had seen him once in the year 1997 in the court premises and once
at Simultula when the witness had gone. The court observed that
PW15 was not connected with the agreement of sale and he had
denied the suggestion that he did not know Jattu Singh (defendant
no.1). Thereafter, the learned 1st appellate court considered the
evidence of P.W.16, who had drafted the agreement, who has also
stated that it was typed by P.W. 2 and both the parties had put their
signature on the same. In his cross examination, he was not knowing
defendant no.1 from before and this witness stated that he had no
knowledge whether there was signature of defendant no.1 on the
agreement. PW17 Pradeep Kumar Akela is also an advocate and he
had also identified the agreement and had stated that both the sides
had put their signature on the agreement in his presence. But in his
cross-examination, he has stated that he did not know defendant no.1
from before. PW19 is the plaintiff himself. He has proved his case and
he had also identified his signature on the agreement of sale. In his
cross-examination, this witness admitted that Jattu Singh had four
sons who were all major, but did not consider it necessary to join them
in the agreement of sale. He has admitted that defendant 2 nd party
were tenants of defendant no.1 for about twenty-four years and when
defendant no.1 was in need of money, he sold the suit property and
that the sale deed by Jattu Singh was absolutely valid. Thereafter, the
court considered the evidence of the defendant witnesses and DW2
and DW3, both were sons of defendant no.1, who denied the
execution of agreement by their father defendant no.1. The court also
observed that DW2 was shown the signature of defendant no.1 on
certified copy of vakalatnama to which earlier he said that the same
was the signature of his father but subsequently he stated that it was
not the signature of his father. The court observed that even then the
trial court marked the said signature as Exhibit 6. The court also
observed that the said signature was not the original signature, but
only a photocopy. The records reveal that a certified copy of the
vakalatnama was filed before the court. The learned 1st appellate court
recorded that the trial court on the basis of aforesaid evidences on
2025:JHHC:35553
record, and upon comparing the signature of defendant no.1 on exhibit
1 with exhibit 6, had come to the conclusion that the agreement of sale
bears the signature of defendant no.1, and the same was a genuine
signature.
33. Thereafter, the court recorded that it was to be seen as to
whether the plaintiff has been able to prove the signature of defendant
no.1 on the agreement of sale to be his genuine signature. The learned
1st appellate court in paragraph 9 of the judgment itself recorded the
submissions of the respective parties and also further recorded the
submissions of the respective parties in paragraph 10 of the judgment
and the finding has been ultimately recorded in paragraph no.11 of the
appellate court's judgment, which is quoted as under:
"11. After having heard learned counsels for both the sides
and after going through the record I find that none of the
witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff has stated that
he was knowing Jattu Singh and was identifying his writing
and signature. The witnesses have only read the name of
Jattu Singh on the agreement and have stated that this is the
signature of Jattu Singh. It is well settled that the burden is
upon the plaintiff to prove the agreement of sale and this
cannot be said to be valid identification of the signature of
Jattu Singh. The witnesses who have identified the signature
of Jattu Singh have specifically admitted that they have no
connection with Jattu Singh. P.W.2 Sushil Kr. Baliyase has
not even identified the signature of Jattu Singh and he has
admitted that he does not know Jattu Singh. Similarly, P.W.3
Indra Nath Jajware has not stated that he was knowing the
signature and writing of Jattu Singh from before. Though he
has identified the signature of Jattu Singh, but he has
admitted that he has no connection with Jattu Singh as Jattu
Singh lives at Simultala and not at Deoghar and this witness
does not go to Simultala. Similarly P.W.15 Baikunth Pandey,
who has identified the signature, of Jattu Singh, has admitted
that he had no concern with Jattu Singh and he had seen him
only once in 1997 at Deoghar and once at Simultala. He has
also not stated that he was knowing the writing and signature
of Jattu Singh from before. Similarly, P.W.16 Braj Bhushan
Dubey and P.W.17 Pradeep Kr. Akela have specifically
stated that they were not knowing Jattu Singh from before
and P.W.16 has admitted that he has no knowledge that the
signature on the agreement is of Jattu Singh. This apart, the
Court below has committed a grave error of law in admitting
Ext-6 in evidence, inasmuch as, the same is only the photo
copy of the signature which could not be taken as evidence in
2025:JHHC:35553
accordance with law. Though objection was raised by the
learned counsel for the defendants, but even then Ext-6 was
taken as evidence which is contrary to all norms of legal
principle and practice. The Court below has committed a
grave error in comparing the photostat copy of the signature
in Ext-6 with that of signature of Jattu Singh on Ext-1 for
coming to the conclusion that the said signature was a
genuine one. The finding given by the Court below on this
point cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. This apart the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in L.N
David's case(supra) and in Jagan Nath's case (supra) is fully
applicable to the facts of this case, inasmuch as, in view of
the fact that the suit-property was sold to the defendant 2nd
party and 3rd party for valuable consideration, the decree of
specific performance of contract could not be granted to the
plaintiff, more so in view of the fact that the plaintiff has
miserably failed to prove that the agreement of sale was
executed in his favour. In these facts and circumstances of
this case I am of the considered view that the plaintiff has
miserably failed in proving the genuineness and legality of
Ext-1, the agreement of sale, allegedly executed in his favour.
In that view of the matter, the plaintiff cannot be held entitled
to get the sale-deed executed in his favour either from the
defendant 1st party or in the event of defendant 1st party
failing in executing the same, through the agency of the
Court. Accordingly, both these issues are decided against the
plaintiff and in favour of the defendants and findings given by
the Court below on these issues are reversed."
34. Thus, the learned 1st appellate court recorded that none of the
witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff had stated that they were
knowing defendant no.1 and were identifying his writing and
signature. The witnesses had only read the name of defendant no.1 on
the agreement and had stated that it was the signature of defendant
no.1. The court also recorded that the witnesses, who have identified
the signature of defendant no.1 have specifically admitted that they
have no connection with Jattu Singh (defendant no.1). The learned 1st
appellate court in that connection referred to the evidence of PW2,
PW3, PW15, PW16 and PW17 to observe that these witnesses were
not knowing the defendant no.1 from before. The court further
recorded that apart from the aforesaid witnesses, the trial court had
committed grave error of law in admitting Exhibit 6 in evidence
inasmuch as the same was only photocopy of the signature, which
2025:JHHC:35553
could not be taken as evidence as per law and held that the finding of
the learned trial court on the point of legality and validity of the
agreement of sale was not sustainable in the eyes of the law. The
learned 1st appellate court held that the plaintiff miserably failed to
prove that the agreement of sale was executed in his favour and
miserably failed to prove the genuineness and legality of Exhibit 1
(agreement of sale), and therefore, held that the plaintiff was not
entitled for specific performance of contract and the finding on the
learned trial court on issue nos.4 and 5 was reversed.
35. As a sequel to the aforesaid, the learned 1 st appellate court
decided issue nos. 8, 9 and 10 in favour of the defendants by holding
that the registered sale deed dated 24.09.1997 in favour of the
defendant 1st party and 27.09.1997 in favour of the defendant 2nd party
executed by defendant 1st party were valid. The finding of the learned
trial court in connection with issue nos.8, 9 and 10 were reversed and,
ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree
granting specific performance of contract in favour of the plaintiff was
reversed.
36. This Court finds that the suit was for specific performance of
contract and the plaintiff specifically pleaded and stated in evidence
that he was throughout ready and willing to perform his part of
contract. The readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff to
perform his part of the contract was not the bone of contention
between the parties but the defendants primarily contested the case
alleging that the agreement of sale relied upon by the plaintiff was a
forged and fabricated document as they disputed the signature of
defendant no.1 on the agreement. The defendant 2nd set and 3rd set also
took a plea that they had no prior knowledge of the alleged agreement
of sale. It is further not in dispute that the sale deed pursuant to the
agreement of sale was to be executed on 12.03.1998 but the plaintiff
had to file the suit for specific performance of contract much prior to
the said date as defendant no.1 was taking steps to sell the property to
defendant 2nd set.
2025:JHHC:35553
37. The suit was filed on 24.09.1997. This Court finds that on
24.09.1997 itself the sale deed in connection with part of the suit
property was executed by the defendant 1st set in favour of defendant
2nd set, although the suit was instituted on the same day and an order
to maintain status quo was also passed on the same day. Thereafter,
sale deed in connection with another part of the suit property was
executed by defendant 1st set in favour of defendant 3rd set (defendant
no.4). Further, as per explanation to Section 52 of the Transfer of
Property Act, the suit is deemed to have commenced from the date the
plaintiff presents the suit and such pendency would extend till the final
decree is passed and such decree is realised. This Court is of the
considered view that in the present case, the alienation of portion of
the suit property by defendant 1st set to defendant 2nd set and another
portion of the suit property by defendant 1st set to defendant 3rd set
would be covered by the principles of lis pendens. Thus, even if it is
assumed that the subsequent purchasers had purchased the property in
good faith and for value, the subsequent sale deeds are hit by the
principle of lis pendens.
38. A judgement has been cited by the learned counsel for the
appellants reported in (2008) 5 SCC 796 Guruswamy Nadar v. P.
Lakshmi Ammal in which it has been held that for a subsequent
purchaser of the same property who has purchased in good faith, the
principle of lis pendens will certainly be applicable notwithstanding
the fact that under Section 19 (b) of the Specific Relief Act his rights
could be protected.
39. In the present case, the arguments have been advanced
primarily with respect to the point as to whether the agreement of sale
(exhibit-1) was at all executed by defendant no.1 and whether the
plaintiff has been able to prove the same.
40. It has been held in the judgement passed in the case reported in
L.N. Aswathama v. P. Prakash, (2009) 13 SCC 229 at para 8 that if
the appraisal of evidence by the trial court suffers from material
irregularity as for example when its decision is based on mere
conjectures and surmises, or when its decision relies upon
2025:JHHC:35553
inadmissible evidence or ignores material evidence or when it draws
inferences and conclusions which do not naturally or logically flow
from the proved facts, the appellate court is bound to interfere with the
findings of the trial court and it is equally well settled that where the
trial court has considered the entire evidence and recorded several
material findings, the first appellate court would not reverse them on
the basis of conjectures and surmises or without analyzing the relevant
evidence in entirety. Paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted
as under: -
"8. The first appellate court can reappreciate evidence and
record findings different from those recorded by the trial court.
It is well settled that if the appraisal of evidence by the trial
court suffers from material irregularity, as for example when
its decision is based on mere conjectures and surmises, or
when its decision relies upon inadmissible evidence or ignores
material evidence or when it draws inferences and conclusions
which do not naturally or logically flow from the proved facts,
the appellate court is bound to interfere with the findings of the
trial court. It is equally well settled that where the trial court
has considered the entire evidence and recorded several
material findings, the first appellate court would not reverse
them on the basis of conjectures and surmises or without
analysing the relevant evidence in entirety. As the final court
of facts, if the first appellate court is reversing the judgment of
the trial court, it is bound to independently consider the entire
evidence. The High Court has ignored these well-settled
principles. In these peculiar circumstances, we have to
examine the correctness of the findings recorded by the High
Court."
41. List of exhibits with respect to the agreement of sale (exhibit-
1):
Exhibit 1: Agreement [exhibited by the typist - P.W-2
who had also signed in the agreement.]
Exhibit 1/A to 1/G: Signatures of Jattu Singh [defendant
no.1]
Exhibit 1/H to 1/L: Signatures of Hiralal Keshri
[plaintiff- P.W-19]
Exhibit 1/M: Indra Nath Jajware (P.W-3), who is
witness to the agreement as per the agreement itself.
Exhibit 1/N: Signature of Braj Bhushan Dubey [P.W-16]
Exhibit 1/O: Signature of S.C. Roy, Advocate
Exhibit 3 to 3 (b): Signature of stamp vendor Triveni
Rout
2025:JHHC:35553
Exhibit 4 to 4 (1): Signature of Stamp supplier Manoj
Kumar Dubey.
42. This Court finds that the learned trial court had considered the
evidences including the evidences of the eye witnesses to the
execution of the agreement including the evidence of P.W-3, who was
the witness as per the agreement itself and also noted that defendant
no.1 did not depose before the court in spite of being alive and
ultimately after considering all the materials on record recorded
finding that the agreement of sale was validly executed. The learned
trial court has recorded that the execution of agreement and signature
on the same was duly supported by the witnesses namely PWs 2, 3,
13, 15, 16, and 17. Additionally, the learned trial court took into
consideration exhibit-6 which was the certified copy of the
vakalatnama executed by defendants in another proceedings under
Section 107 Cr.P.C executed on the same date, that is 13.03.1997 (the
date of execution of the agreement of sale involved in this case) and
exhibit 6 was exhibited by the D.W-2 in paragraph 21 of his cross
examination and found that the photocopy of the signature in the
certified copy of the vakalatnama tallied with the signature of
defendant no.1 on the agreement of sale. However, the learned 1st
appellate court apart from the fact that the witnesses were not
acquainted with defendant no.1 so as to identify his signature observed
that "this apart, the Court below has committed a grave error of law
in admitting Ext-6 in evidence, inasmuch as, the same is only the
photo copy of the signature which could not be taken as evidence in
accordance with law. Though objection was raised by the learned
counsel for the defendants, but even then, Ext-6 was taken as evidence
which is contrary to all norms of legal principle and practice. The
Court below has committed a grave error in comparing the photostat
copy of the signature in Ext-6 with that of signature of Jattu Singh on
Ext-1 for coming to the conclusion that the said signature was a
genuine one. The finding given by the Court below on this point
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law." The consideration of exhibit-6
by the learned trial court has been questioned by the learned 1 st
2025:JHHC:35553
appellate court and this Court is also of the considered view that
signature on the exhibit could not have been tallied by photocopy of
the signature on exhibit 6 (certified copy of Vakalatnama in another
case) but the approach of the learned 1st appellate court in dealing with
the oral evidence with regard to execution of the agreement by
defendant no.1 is certainly not according to law as will be evident
from the following discussions.
43. This Court finds that PW2, had not only identified Jattu Singh
at the time of execution of agreement, but was also an eyewitness to
his signature. PW2 is the typist, who had not only typed the
agreement, but had also put signature on the agreement. He had also
stated that on the agreement, there is signature of Jattu Singh,
defendant no.1, and also two witnesses, Indra Nath Jajware and
Mohammad Maqsood, and also contains the signature of Brij Bhushan
Dubey, the advocate although he had only exhibited his signature as
Exhibit 1. During cross-examination, he has stated that he did not
know Jattu Singh, but he knew the plaintiff for some time and he also
knew the witness Indra Nath Jajware (P.W-3-witness as per the
agreement) but he did not know Md. Maqsood Alam (the other
witness as per the agreement).
44. So far as PW3 is concerned, he is Indra Nath Jajware. He has
also fully supported the case and he has stated that in his presence, the
agreement was executed. He has identified the signature of both the
plaintiff and defendant no.1 and signatures were exhibited as exhibits
1 (a) and 1 (b). He has exhibited his signature also. During his cross-
examination, he has stated that he knew Jattu Singh [defendant no.1],
who was a resident of Simultala, and that Jattu Singh does not live in
Deoghar and he does not visit Simultala frequently and he stated that
it was not correct to say that he did not know Jattu Singh [defendant
no.1] and that his signature was forged. He has further stated that it
was not correct to say that agreement was not executed in his presence
and that the parties had not signed in his presence. This witness has
emphatically stated that the agreement was executed in his presence
and he knew Jattu Singh [defendant no.1] from before and the parties
2025:JHHC:35553
had also put the signature in his presence. However, he has merely
stated that Jattu Singh lives in Simultala and he does not visit
Simultala. This witness has fully supported the case and supported the
due execution of the agreement of sale and has also supported the fact
that he knew Jattu Singh from before and is an eye witness to the
agreement of sale [exhibit-1].
45. So far as PW17 is concerned, he is an advocate, namely
Pradeep Kumar Akela. He stated that he had drafted the agreement,
and he has asserted that both the parties have put their signature in his
presence and that Indra Nath Jajware (P.W-3) and Mohammad
Maqsood, had also put their signature on the agreement in his
presence. The signatures have already been marked as exhibits. He has
stated that he did not know Jattu Singh [defendant no.1] from before
and that he did not even know the plaintiff from before. He has also
stated that there were two signatures of Jattu Singh [defendant no.1]
on the first page of the agreement and since his hands were shaking,
he signed again. He denied in the cross-examination that Jattu Singh
[defendant no.1] and the plaintiff had not put signature in his presence.
This witness has fully supported the case of the plaintiff with respect
to due execution of agreement and he is also an eye witness to the
parties signing the agreement in his presence.
46. This Court finds that the learned 1st appellate court, while
recording the finding in paragraph 11 of the impugned judgment, has
primarily gone into the fact as to whether the witnesses, who had
deposed in connection with the validity of agreement of sale [Exhibit
1] and were identifying the signature of Jattu Singh [defendant no.1]
on the agreement, knew Jattu Singh [defendant no.1] from before or
not so as to qualify as a competent witness to identify his signature.
However, the learned 1st appellate court has misdirected himself and
failed to consider that many of these witnesses as discussed above,
had stated that Jattu Singh [defendant no.1] had put his signature on
the agreement in their presence and they were the eye witnesses to the
execution of the agreement of sale, which included PW3, the witness
to the agreement as mentioned in the agreement itself.
2025:JHHC:35553
47. This Court is of the considered view that if the witnesses
including the witnesses mentioned in the agreement of sale itself
deposed that Jattu Singh [defendant no.1] had put his signature on the
agreement of sale in their presence, it is not necessary for them to
know Jattu Singh [defendant no.1] from much before so as to be a
competent witness to identify his signature for the purposes of due
execution of the agreement. The learned trial court has also recorded
that there was no cogent explanation for non-examination of Jattu
Singh [defendant no.1] in the trial when the defendant 1 st party
disputed the signature of Jattu Singh [defendant no.1] on the
agreement. This Court is of the view that the entire approach of the
learned 1st appellate court while holding that agreement was not
proved, is not in accordance with law.
48. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered in
favour of the plaintiff (appellant) and against the defendants
(respondents). Consequently, the impugned judgement passed in Title
Appeal No.20 of 2002 and Title Appeal No.18 of 2002 are set aside.
49. This second appeal is allowed.
50. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not
pressed.
51. Let a soft copy of this order be communicated to the court
concerned through FAX/email.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Pronounced on 27.11.2025
Saurav/
Uploaded on 01.12.2025
