S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 792/2007. Case: Narayan Singh and Ors. Vs Nanagram Sharma. Rajasthan High Court

Case NumberS.B. Civil First Appeal No. 792/2007
CounselFor Appellant: V.K. Rathore, Adv. and For Respondents: Ram Rakh Sharma, Adv.
JudgesDeepak Maheshwari, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order I Rule 10; Order XXVI Rule 1; Section 151
Judgement DateFebruary 07, 2017
CourtRajasthan High Court


Deepak Maheshwari, J.

  1. Defendant-appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 28th November, 2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Civil Original Suit No. 105/2005 (120/2005) whereby, the learned trial Judge has partly decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for specific performance of the agreement and injunction. However, the prayer seeking injunction against the appellant-defendant for not dispossessing the plaintiff was rejected.

  2. Briefly, the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff filed a suit on 10th May, 2005 seeking specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction stating that the defendant executed an agreement to sale on 15th September, 1996 in favour of the plaintiff to sell agricultural land of Khasra No. 131 comprising of 4 bighas situated in village Bhanpur Khurd. The total sale amount of Rs. 75,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to defendant and the possession of the agricultural land was also handed over by defendant to him. As the said land was already mortgaged in favour of Bank, the defendant assured to get the sale-deed registered as soon as it is redeemed from the mortgage. It has been further stated that the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. The said land was redeemed from mortgage on 31st March, 2005 but the defendant did not execute the sale-deed in favour of plaintiff. Registered notice was sent by the plaintiff through his Advocate on 5th May, 2005 which was received by the defendant but he did not execute the sale-deed. Hence, the suit was filed.

  3. In written statement, defendant denied these facts narrated in the plaint. Defendant stated that the plaintiff got one stamp paper signed from him and his sons on the pretext of getting loan sanctioned on his agricultural land and forged the said agreement upon that stamp paper. Defendant and his sons are illiterate and the plaintiff has taken advantage of this fact.

  4. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-

    (1) Whether the defendant executed an agreement to sale on 15th September, 1996 to sell the disputed property for a sum of Rs. 75,000/- and handed over the possession thereof after receiving the said amount?

    (2) Whether the plaintiff has always been ready and willing to perform the contract?

    (3) Whether the plaintiff is in cultivatory possession over the disputed property?

    (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him from transferring the disputed property to any other person and also from dispossessing the plaintiff therefrom?

    (4-A) Whether the agreement dated 15th September, 1996 is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT