Madhya Pradesh High Court
Teeka Ram Shivhare vs Mst.Tulwati Bai on 10 January, 2023
Author: Dwarka Dhish Bansal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
ON THE 10TH OF JANUARY, 2023
FIRST APPEAL NO.490 OF 1998
BETWEEN:-
TEKARAM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O SHRI DEWANSINGH SHIVHARE,
AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE MEHTA
TAH-LAKHNADON, DISTRICT SEONI
AT PRESENT IN SERVICE AT BHOPAL
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI AJAY KUMAR OJHA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MST. TULWATI BAI (DEAD) THROUGH
LRS:-
(A) SHANTI BAI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
WIFE OF DIWAN SINGH. VILLAGE MEHTA
TAH. LAKHNADON, DISTRICT SEONI (M.P.)
(B) SMT. SUKKU BAI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
WIDOW OF LATE ANNANDILAL RAI, R/O
VILLAGE SIROUDI, TAHSIL SIHORA
DISTRICT JABALPUR. (M.P.)
(C) SMT. BATTU BAI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
W/O NONELAL SHIVHARE, R/O VILLAGE
MEHTA, TAHSIL LAKHNADON DISTRICT
SEONI (M.P.)
2. THE STATE OF M.P. THROUGH
COLLECTOR SEONI.
....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 1/13/2023
10:30:45 AM
- 2 -
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed
the following:
JUDGMENT
This first appeal has been preferred by plaintiff challenging the
judgment and decree dated 23.07.1998 passed by Additional District
Judge, Lakhnadon in civil suit no.26-A/1998 whereby civil suit filed by
plaintiff/appellant has been dismissed.
2. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on 26.10.1998. Despite
service of notice and despite issuance of SPC to the respondents, none
has appeared on their behalf, therefore, with the consent of counsel for
the appellant, the first appeal is heard finally.
3. In short, the facts are that the plaintiff/appellant instituted a suit for
specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 24.03.1991 (Ex.P/1)
as well as for permanent injunction against the original defendant 1- Mst.
Tulwati Bai in respect of agriculture lands as mentioned in para 2 of the
plaint total area 3.30 hectare situated in Village Mehta, Tahsil Lakhnadon,
District Seoni. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant 1 entered into
an agreement of sale with the plaintiff and after receipt of entire sale
consideration of Rs.50,000/- she handed over possession of the land to
the plaintiff on the same date. It is alleged that on the date of agreement
Bhu- Adhikar & Rin Pustika was not available with the defendant 1,
therefore, the sale deed could not be executed. The plaintiff is in
possession as owner with effect from 24.03.1991 and the plaintiff is ready
and willing to get executed sale deed but the defendant 1 wants to sell the
land to others and with the help of her relatives, wants to dispossess the
plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff prayed for decree of specific
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 1/13/2023
10:30:45 AM
- 3 -
performance and in the alternative prayed for refund of consideration
amount of Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. w.e.f. 24.03.1991.
4. The defendant 1 appeared and filed written statement denying the
plaint allegations and contended that she has never sold the suit land and
in fact the plaintiff is grand son (ननतत) of the defendant and she has never
received amount of Rs.50,000/- and has not handed over possession.
Taking benefit of close relations, the plaintiff got thumb impressions on
some blank papers and fabricated the agreement in question. With these
contentions the suit was prayed to be dismissed.
5. The defendant 2 being proforma party did not file any written
statement.
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed
issues and recorded evidence led by the parties and after due
consideration of the same, vide its judgement and decree dtd. 23.7.1998
dismissed the suit holding the agreement of sale to be not proved.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submits that learned trial
Court has erred in holding that the agreement in question is not a proven
document but it is a false and fabricated document. He also submits that
the learned Court below has erred in holding that the plaintiff has not
deposited impounding fees of Rs.55/- as per court's order dated
03.04.1996 and accordingly has erred in not considering the agreement
(Ex.P/1) to be on proper stamp. He further submits that because the
agreement in question is a proven and admissible document, the suit for
specific performance ought to have been decreed and in any case, the
plaintiff was entitled for decree of refund of consideration amount of
Rs.50,000/- along with interest @ 18% p.a.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 1/13/2023
10:30:45 AM
- 4 -
8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and perused the
record.
9. Following point for determination is arising in the first appeal :-
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
plaintiff is entitled for decree of specific performance on the basis
of alleged/suspicious agreement of sale (Ex.P/1) ?"
10. From bare perusal of alleged agreement of sale dated 24.03.1991
(Ex.P/1), it is clear that it is on a plain paper bearing thumb impressions
of several persons. The agreement itself shows that the amount of sale
consideration was fixed at Rs.50,000/- which appears to have been paid
on the same date and further the possession is also said to have been
handed over to the plaintiff on the same date. As such, the document
(Ex.P/1) cannot be considered as an agreement of sale but it is a complete
document of sale and requires compulsory registration as has been held
by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Natthu Khan vs. Komal
and others 2010(2) MPWN 4. As such the alleged agreement of sale in
question is not admissible at all for want of registration.
11. By the impugned judgment and decree learned trial Court has held
that the alleged agreement has not been proved to have been executed by
the defendant 1 but it is a forged and fabricated document, got prepared
by plaintiff himself. Further, despite being in govt. service the plaintiff
did not seek prior permission of purchase of the land nor any information
of purchase of land was given to the Department, therefore, agreement
becomes doubtful. Ultimately vide para 24, learned trial Court has opined
that no agreement was executed by the defendant 1 and further no
payment of consideration was made by the plaintiff to the defendant 1.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 1/13/2023
10:30:45 AM
- 5 -
12. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the
plaintiff/appellant has been unable to point out any illegality or perversity
in the findings recorded by learned Court.
13. As such in view of the aforesaid discussion and in my considered
opinion, learned trial court has not committed any illegality in dismissing
the suit for specific performance or for refund of consideration amount.
14. Resultantly, the first appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However
no order as to costs.
15. Interim application(s), if any, shall stand dismissed.
(DWARKA DHISH BANSAL)
JUDGE
pb
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PRASHANT
BAGJILEWALE
Signing time: 1/13/2023
10:30:45 AM
