Jagir Singh and others vs Jit Singh @ Ajit Singh and others

Hemant Gupta, J.—The plaintiff is aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the courts below whereby the suit for rectification of an agreement dated 1.1.1978 and the suit for specific performance of such an agreement was dismissed.

The plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 1.1.1978 wherein the defendant is alleged to have agreed to sell 84 kanals 4 marlas of land situation in village Mallanwala Tehsil Zira at the rate of Rs. 6300/ per acre. The plaintiff has alleged that he paid Rs. 21,800/ as earnest money. Sale deed was to be executed by 10th Ashar 2036 corresponding to 24.6.1979 after getting the proprietary rights. The plaintiff alleged that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract but the defendant No. 1 has sold the land to defendants No. 2 to 4 through registered sale deed dated 9.7.1979. The sale is favour of defendants No. 2 to 4 is without consideration and mala fide and without notice of agreement of sale is favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought rectification in the said agreement in respect of the total land which was said to be 84 kanals 6 marlas, in respect of Rect No. i.e. 238 instead of 236 and total area of land i.e. 2 kanals 16 marlas in lieu of 2 kanals 12 marlas of Khasra No. 284/21/1.

The defendant in the written statement denied the execution of the agreement. It was stated that his thumb impressions were obtained by the plaintiff on blank papers which might have been converted by the plaintiff as an agreement. Defendants No. 2 to 4 in a separate written statement pleaded that they are bona fide purchasers of the land in dispute for valuable consideration. According to defendants No. 2 to 4 they entered into an agreement to sell dated 17.3.1978 and paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/. Another sum of Rs. 18,000/ was paid on 30.6.1978 and another sum of Rs. 10,000/ was paid on 5.1.1979. Balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 30,000/ was paid before the SubRegistrar at the time of the registration of the sale deed on 9.7.1979.

In support of his claim, the plaintiff has appeared as his own witness as PW 1 and examined Gurbachan Singh as PW2 and Jagir Singh as PW3. The plaintiff has brought on the record Ex.P.1, agreement dated 1.1.1978. The plaintiff allegedly served a notice calling upon the defendant to execute sale deed which is Ex.P.2 dated 25.6.1979. To controvert the evidence of the plaintiff, defendant Jeet Singh has appeared as D.W.1 and has also examined Bohar Singh D.W.2. The defendant has also examined few other witnesses regarding the execution of the agreements of sale dated 17.3.1978, 3.6.1978 and 5.1.1978 as well as notice dated 2.6.1978 informing the plaintiff about the agreement. The defendants also produced reply given by the plaintiff dated 16.6.1978 as Ex.D.7.

Both the courts below have dismissed the suit after appreciating the evidence holding that the agreement dated 1.1.1978 relied upon by the plaintiff is not proved to be executed. It is also held that defendants No. 2 to 4 are bona fide purchasers of the land for valuable consideration.

Before this court, the learned counsel for the appellant has sought to dispute the findings recorded by the courts below by way of reappreciation of evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that it was the stand of the defendant that his thumb impressions have been obtained on blank papers whereas in fact the thumb impressions are on stamp paper.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.

A sequence of events would show that an agreement was executed by the defendant Jeet Singh in favour of defendants No. 2 to 4 on 17.3.1978. In pursuance of such an agreement notice is issued to the plaintiff on 2.6.1978 Ex.D.6 that the plaintiff threatened to get a sale deed executed in respect of the land in dispute. The plaintiff has submitted reply Ex.D.7 dated 16.6.1978. In the said reply the plaintiff though referred to an agreement but the details of such agreement i.e. neither the date nor the sale consideration nor the time by which the sale deed was to be executed were mentioned. It was only on 25.6.1979 vide notice Ex.P.2 i.e. after more than one year, the plaintiff calls upon the defendants to execute the sale deed on the basis of agreement dated 1.1.1978.

The stamp paper for the agreement relied upon by the plaintiff has been purchased from the stamp vendor at Ferozepur whereas the land is situated within the area of Tehsil Zira. As per the plaintiff he was sitting tenant. There was no urgency so as to get the agreement executed by purchasing stamp paper on 30.12.1977 and to execute the agreement on 1.1.1978 from one Gurbachan Singh who is not a regular scribe. The execution of an agreement of such a nature though could be scribed by any person but the fact that the plaintiff was already in possession and the sale deed was to be executed on 24.6.1979, therefore, in such circumstances, such an agreement could very well be executed by a regular scribe. The agreement in favour of defendants No. 2 to 4 has been executed by a regular scribe by purchasing stamp paper from Tehsil Zira. The overwritings and cuttings in the agreement raise suspicion about the due execution of the agreement.

The plaintiff claims himself to be in possession of the suit land prior to the execution of the agreement as tenant but still neither correct khasra number nor correct area was mentioned. Still further the agreement contains a clause that if the sale deed is not executed for the entire land the plaintiff would be entitled to execute the sale deed for half of the land. There is no justification for such a clause. Still further, there are cuttings and overwritings in the agreement which have not been authenticated by initials nor clarified at the foot of the document. The sale consideration seems to be tampered with.

Both the courts below have returned finding that such an agreement is not proved to be executed by the defendant. The conduct of the plaintiff is such which does not inspire confidence as to in respect of execution of the agreement. It appears that with a view to defeat the right of defendants No. 2 to 4 he came up with a plea of an agreement executed prior to the agreement in favour of the defendants No. 2 to 4.

The findings recorded by the courts below are based upon proper appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed.