Phoola Ram vs Smt Ramvati Devi And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1117 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 275/2008

Phoola Ram S/o Shri Shyonath, Resident of Girudi Tehsil Bansur,
Presently resident of Village Panchudala Dhani Sitopssingwali
(Parsowala), Tehsil Kotputli District Jaipur, Rajasthan (Since
deceased)
1/1 Smt. Gaindi W/o late Shri Phoola Ram, Aged about 56 years,
1/2 Sanwal Ram S/o late Shri Phoola Ram, Aged about 41 years,
1/3 Hari Singh S/o late Shri Phoola Ram, Aged about 36 years,
1/4 Patram S/o late Shri Phoola Ram, Aged about 30 years,
1/5 Mahendra S/o late Shri Phoola Ram, Aged about 27 years,
1/6 Lahri S/o late Shri Phoola Ram, Aged about 25 years,
All are Residents of Girudi Tehsil Bansur, Presently resident of
Village Panchudala Dhani Sitopssingwali (Parsowala), Tehsil
Kotputli District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
1/7 Teeja D/o late Shri Phoola Ram, W/o Shri Laxman, aged
about 38 years,
1/8 Guddi D/o late Shri Phoola Ram, W/o Shri Udmi Ram, aged
about 32 years,
1/9 Kabool D/o late Shri Phoola Ram, W/o Shri Shyoram, aged
about 28 years
All are Residents of Fatehpur, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar,
Rajasthan
                                                      ----Appellant-Defendant
                                    Versus
1. Smt. Ramvati Devi W/o Shri Kishan Singh Shekhawat ,
Resident of Pragpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan
                                                         ...Respondent-Plaintiff

2. Sub-Registrar Kotputli, District Jaipur.

3. State Government through Tehsildar, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. District Collector, Jaipur.

                                                                 ...Respondents


For Appellant(s)           :    Mr. J. K. Yogi, Adv.
For Respondent(s)          :    Ms. Gayatri Rathore, Senior Counsel
                                with Mr. Ran Singh, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

(2 of 5) [CFA-275/2008]

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 27.01.2023

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 01.02.2023

This civil first appeal under Section 96 CPC filed by the

appellant-defendant (for short 'the defendant') against the

judgment dated 24.03.2008 and decree dated 22.04.2008 passed

by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kotputali, District Jaipur

whereby the learned court below decreed the suit of specific

performance of agreement in favour of the respondent-plaintiff

(for short 'the plaintiff').

Brief facts of the appeal are that plaintiff had filed a suit for

specific performance of agreement to sell dated 12.01.2006 before

the learned court below in which plaintiff averred that the original

defendant had executed an agreement to sell with regard to land

of Khasra No.61/0.01, 62/0.05, 63/6.49, total Kita 3 Rakba 6.55

situated at Mauza Pachudala Tehsil Kotputali at the rate of Rs.2.20

lacs per bigha on a stamp paper of Rs.100/-. It was also averred

that at the time of execution of agreement to sell, Rs.7 lacs were

given in advance to the original defendant and remaining amount

was to be paid upto 30.05.2006. It was also averred that in the

agreement to sell it was specifically mentioned that if the

defendant fails to get the registry done, he will pay twice the

advance amount i.e. Rs.14 lacs to the plaintiff. It was also averred

that due to holiday on 30.05.2006 on account of Maharana Pratap

Jayanti, plaintiff informed the defendant and went to the office of

Sub-Registrar, Kotputali on 31.05.2006 at 11:00 AM for

performing the agreement to sell but defendant did not appear for

getting the land registered in the name of plaintiff.

                                    (3 of 5)                          [CFA-275/2008]


     Defendant    filed    a   written        statement        and   denied    the

averments made in the plaintiff. It was specifically averred that

the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform her part and she

never paid the remaining amount till 30.05.2006 and she did not

present in the office of Sub-Registrar on 31.05.2006. Defendant

also stated in his written statement that he had purchased four

stamps of Rs.1,000/- each for registration of sale deed but since

the plaintiff was not willing to make payment of the remaining

amount, therefore, sale deed could not be registered.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial

court framed 6 issues :-

(i) Whether plaintiff was ready and willing to pay remaining amount as per conditions of agreement dated 12.01.2006 but due to mischief of defendant, he had not taken remaining amount as per condition of agreement and denied to register the sale deed in favour of plaintiff with regard to land of Khasra No.61/0.01, 62/0.05, 63/6.49, total Kita 3 Rakba 6.55.

(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for specific performance of contract dated 12.01.2006 by paying remaining amount and get sell deed registered in favour of her. Alternatively, if not possible then entitled to get twice the amount Rs.7 lacs with interest @ 12% per annum.

(iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to get injunction as per Para 5 and 13 of the plaint and also entitled to get permanent injunction not to sale the land in question to third person as per agreement dated 12.01.2006.

(iv) Whether on account of holiday on 30.05.2006, defendant had purchased the stamps on next day and typed the sale deed on it as per agreement. The said stamps Nos.926 to 929 were in possession of plaintiff but she had not paid remaining amount, so, on account of default no cause of action accrued to her and suit be dismissed.

(4 of 5) [CFA-275/2008]

(v) Whether suit is insufficiently stamped.

(vi) Relief.

Plaintiff herself examined as PW1 and got examined PW2-

Balram. Defendant examined as DW1-Phularam and got examined

DW2-Mahendra, DW3-Chiranji Lal, DW4-Ranjeet Kumar Bansal.

Learned counsel for the defendant submits that learned court

below has not appreciated the evidence in right perspective. So,

judgment of the trial court is contrary to the facts and material

available on record. Learned counsel for the defendant also

submits that as per Section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1993

the plaintiff had to show her readiness and willingness for

performing the contract. Learned counsel for the defendant also

submits that there is no evidence that plaintiff was ready and

willing to make the payment of remaining amount of Rs.52 lacs.

Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that defendant

was present before the Sub-Registrar and he had purchased four

stamps for registration of sale deed but plaintiff had not paid the

remaining amount, so, sale deed could not be registered. Learned

counsel for the defendant also submits that alleged agreement to

sell was not registered agreement and it was insufficiently

stamped. So, it had no evidentiary value but trial court had not

appreciated this fact. So, appeal filed by the defendant be allowed

and judgment of the trial court be set aside.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submitted that

defendant had not disputed the so-called agreement to sell.

Plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the remaining amount of sale

(5 of 5) [CFA-275/2008]

consideration. She was also present before Sub-Registrar office on

31.05.2006 because there was holiday on 30.05.2006. The

defendant had not submitted the so-called stamps. So, present

appeal filed by the defendant be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the

plaintiff and perused the relevance material on record.

In the present case, defendant had not disputed the

agreement to sell dated 12.01.2006. By this agreement to sell,

the defendant agreed to sell the land of Khasra No.61/0.01,

62/0.05, 63/6.49, total Kita 3 Rakba 6.55 situated at Mauza

Panchudala Tehsil Kotputali at the rate of Rs.2.20 lacs per bigha.

At the time of execution of agreement, plaintiff had paid Rs.7 lacs

to the defendant and rest of the amount was to be paid to the

defendant upto 30.05.2006. Due to holiday on 30.05.2006,

plaintiff was present before the Sub-Registrar office with

remaining amount on 31.05.2006 but defendant had not come to

the office of Sub-Registrar for registration of sale deed. There is

no contrary evidence to this effect. Thus, as per the evidence of

the plaintiff, the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part

of the contract as per the agreement to sell. So, in my considered

opinion, trial court had not committed any error in decreeing the

suit in favour of the plaintiff. So, present appeal being devoid of

merit is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed

accordingly.

All the pending applications, if any, stand dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin/84

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)