Jarnail Singh vs Sukhbir Singh and another

Sureshwar Thakur,J. Â

1.The instant civil suit has been preferred, for, rendition, of a decree of specific performance of agreement, and, in the alternative, for, rendition, of, a

decree qua possession of the suit property, besides, for pronouncement, of, a decree for pecuniary damages quantified in, a, sum of Rs.30 lacs

alongwith @18% p.a., also, for rendition of a decree qua. permanent prohibitory injunction, as well as, a decree qua mandatory injunction.

The brief facts of the case, are, that a Brick kiln named, and, styled, as, “M/S Sada Shiv Bricks Companyâ€, situated at village Ratyor, Tehsil

Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. with lease hold land, measuring 65 Bighas, comprised in Kh/Kht No. 451/592, 93 bearing Khasra No. 2044, 1999, 1994,

1997, 1998, 1995,1996 and 1992, as, entered in the Jamabandi for the year 2001Â02 (for short “suit propertyâ€), is, owned by Garibu, and, under a

lease agreement, the soil of the land, is, covenanted to be utilized, for, manufacturing bricks, and, longevity, of, the lease aforesaid executed interÂse

the aforesaid company, and, owner thereof, was, up to 30.9.2006. The suit property, as averred in the plaint also includes licence (No.

SLN/Bricks/114), Chimney, labour huts, tools equipments, frames and 15 wooden trolleys, and, the suit property,is, also averred in the plaint, to be,

including 15 lacs baked, and, 10 lacs unbaked bricks. The plaintiff avers, of his, purchasing through, an agreement of 29.9.2007, the aforesaid brick

kiln, from, its sole proprietor Shri Ashok Kumar Jindal alongwith, all the appendages, except the prepared bricks, and, charcoal present on the spot,

and, the same also included, all, the frames and huts etc. alongwith all the lease rights. The plaintiff also avers, of, the brick kiln being free from all

encumbrances, and, the possession of the same, being taken on the date of aforesaid agreement by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff further avers, of, his operating the brick kiln smoothly, and, his rearing handsome returns therefrom. It is further averred by the plaintiff,

qua, defendants becoming avaricious, of, the sudden upsurge, in the commercial activity in the area, and, improvement in the business prospects,

hence, started sending feelers to the plaintiff, to, sell the said brick kiln, and, owing, to, persistent persuasion of the defendants, the, plaintiff agreed, to

on 22.8.2008, hence sell the suit property, to the defendants, alongwith the stock of bricks about 15 lacs, and, about 10 lacs unbaked bricks besides the

labour huts, frames, chimney and other equipments alongwith lease rights, for, a total consideration of Rs. 33,75,000/Â​ only. It is further averred by the

plaintiff that the relevant agreement was reduced into writing, and, was executed interÂse the plaintiff, and, the defendants, and, come to be attested,

on 22.8.2008. At the time of execution of the relevant agreement, the defendants are averred, to, tender to the plaintiff, a, sum of Rupees 9 lacs, and

Rs. One lac, in cash, and, Rs. 1 lac by way of two cheques, of Rs. 50,000/Â each, payable at HDFC Bank, however, the same could not be enÂ‐

cashed, as the same, were wrongly drawn and two fresh cheques, were, issued by the defendants, for, a sum of Rs. 50,000/Â, each payable in the

personal account of the plaintiff, AND, as such, a sum of Rs. 10 lacs, was, received as earnest money by the plaintiff, from, the defendants, and, the

defendants further undertook, to pay the second installment of Rs. 10 lacs before 21.11.2008.

It is further averred, that, the balance amount of Rs.13,75,000/Â, was, to be tendered by the defendants, before 21.1.2009, and, the plaintiff was to

transfer the lease, of land, in favour of the defendants, after, clearing of the total consideration of Rs.33,75,000/Â on 21.1.2009 by the defendants, to

the plaintiff. It stands further averred of the defendants failing to pay the second installment, of, Rs. Ten lacs, to the plaintiff, before 21.11.2008. Since

the defendants failed, to, pay the second installment, of, Rs. Ten lacs to the plaintiff, and, hence as per, the terms of the agreement, the, earnest money

of Rs. Ten lacs paid, to, the plaintiff on the date of agreement i.e. 22.8.2008, stood forfeited to the plaintiff, and, the agreement stood cancelled and

revoked. The plaintiff instead of proceeding, with, the forfeiture of the earnest money rather gave a chance, to the defendants, to perform their part, of

the agreement, and, extended the date, by 21.1.2009. It is further averred, in the plaint, that physical possession, of, the Brick kiln aforesaid alongwith

licence (No. SLN/Bricks/114), Chimney, labour huts, tools equipments, frames and 15 wooden trolleys, AND, the suit property also stands averred to

be including 15 lacs baked and 10 lacs unbaked bricks, all whereof were, handed over to the defendants by the plaintiff, visÂ​aÂ​vis the date of drawing

of agreement i.e 22.8.2008, alongwith the lease land qua which the lease is valid from 1.10.2005 to 30.9.2016, as, per the lease deed so executed, by

its owner Shri Garibu, in, favour of the above brick kiln. The said brick kiln is averred, to be, free from every encumbrances.

In terms of the agreement, the plaintiff also handed over the licence No. SLN/Bricks/114 of the Brick kiln, alongwith, the other relevant documents, on

the date of agreement, to the defendants. Further more it is averred, that it being agreed mutually, between, the parties that, the price of raw as well a

burnt bricks, being computed later, and, as such, the same was to be paid, by the defendants to the plaintiff, and, after counting, the same. It is further

been averred, that, the defendants despite having been delivered possession of the suit property, on the date of the execution of the agreement to sell

i.e 22.8.2008, and, theirs having dishonestly, sold, the stock of 15 lacs baked bricks, for, a price of Rs. 25 lacs, and, further having sold 10 lacs unbaked

bricks, after baking them by utilizing the coal, from the stock and the fire wood, from the stock of the brick kiln, further for a sum of Rs. 18 lacs, and,

having failed to honor the terms, of, the agreement, thereupon their being thus liable to pay, for, the 15 lacs baked and 10 lacs, unbaked bricks @ 1450/

and 300/Â per thousand respectively, alongwith a sum of Rs. 3 lacs for the price of stock of the coal, fire wood. The defendants being further liable to

pay for the labour huts, and, other equipments/tools i.e. 16 wooden trolleys valuing Rs. 8,000/Â chimney valuing Rs. 1 lac, and, other tools valuing

Rs.20,000/Â and Rs. 40 lacs, as, the defendants disposed, of, the stock of the bricks, coal, wood and other articles of the kiln. Thereafter, the

defendants, have, abandoned the brick kiln. That the plaintiff, has, meticulously performed, his part of the obligation as per the terms, of the agreement

including, obtaining the dissolution, of, the previous partnership and further offered his sincere assistance to the defendants for carrying out the terms

of the agreement, but, the defendants, have intentionally avoided, to, with a malafide intention, honour the agreement, and, its terms. That the plaintiff

has been throughout ready and willing his part of the agreement, and, is still ready to perform his part.

That under the foregoing circumstances, it is amply clear that the defendants, have utterly failed to perform their part of the agreement, and, the

defendants, are, liable for the penalty of the forfeiture, of, the earnest money of Rs. 10.00 lacs paid to the plaintiff, at the time, of the execution of the

agreement. It is further averred, in the plaint, that, not only this, the plaintiff, even, after all this happened, showed generosity, and, laxity to the

defendants, and served a legal notice upon the defendants dated 13.1.20009, calling upon them to pay the entire balance amount of Rs. 23,75,000/Â on

or before the last date i.e 21.1.2009, stipulated in the agreement, alongwith, the interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of second installment of Rs.

10 lacs, amount whereof, the defendants was supposed to pay to the plaintiff, on or before 21.11.2008. However, the defendants neither paid the

balance amount nor they turned up on 21.1.2009, in, the office of Sub Registrar Nalagarh, for, the execution of sale deed, whereas, the plaintiff,

remained, in the Office of the learned Sub Registrar Nalagarh, on that day, through out its course, and, kept on waiting for the defendants. Thereafter

the plaintiff, at last, when the defendants did not turn up, got his affidavit sworn, and attested, before, the learned sub Registrar Nalagah. The cause of

action accrued in favour of the plaintiff, on 21.1.2009, and, as such, the suit is within limitation.

The plaintiff is entitled, to, a decree for specific performance, of, the agreement dated 22.8.2008, by theirs making payment of Rs.33.75 lacs to the

plaintiff, as, amount of Rs.10 lacs, paid as advance, to the plaintiff, standing forfeited, on account of the default, act and conduct of the defendants, the

plaintiff , is, also entitled to receive, an amount of Rs. 33.75 lacs, since the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement,

dated, 22.8.2008 but the defendants have abandoned, the kiln after removing 15 lacs bricks, from suit property, and, thus have committed a clear

breach of the terms of the agreement, and, in case the defendants, are, not interested, in, the performance of their part of the agreement or want to

rescind the same, in that event, the, plaintiff is further entitled to claim damages for the loss of baked and unbaked bricks, coal fuel, wood stock,

chimney labour huts, tools, and, equipments to the extent of Rs.30 lacs by way of alternative relief. The plaintiff also avers in his plaint that no other

suit on the same or similar ground is pending or decided by any Courts of law. It is also averred in the plaint that the present Court has jurisdiction to

try the present suit. It is further averred that the value for the purpose of Court fee and the jurisdiction is Rs. 33.75 lacs, hence the present suit.

The suit was contested by the defendants, and, they have filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objections qua

maintainability, estoppel, non joinder of necessary parties, and, the suit is not properly valued, for the purposes of Court fee, and, jurisdiction. On

merits, it is submitted, that, the plaintiff never purchased the suit property, and,document of 29.9.2007, is, a General Power of Attorney, executed by

Mr. Ashok Jindal, in, favour of the plaintiff, which is not legally valid, as, the same is not registered, under, the Provisions of the Indian Registration

Act. It is also contended in the writtenÂstatement, that, the defendants were persuaded, and, induced by the plaintiff to enter into an agreement to sell

with respect to brick kiln with him. It is also contended that the quantity of bricks, as, mentioned by the plaintiff, were, not available on the spot. It is

further contended that the plaintiff did not disclose to them the true facts about his rights, title and interest, in, the brick kiln.

The defendants in their writtenÂstatement, admitted, that an agreement, for an amount of Rs.33.75 lacs was reduced, into writing between the parties

on 22.8.2008, with, an understanding, that, the cost of material amounting, to, Rs.12 lacs, will be, the part of this sale consideration, and, the same will

be paid after the plaintiff will get the lease transferred, in, the name of the defendants, and, the agreement was also entered into with the bonafide

belief, that the plaintiff, is, competent, to, enter into a contract, his having title over the suit property. But the plaintiff failed to get the lease of land

transferred in the name of the defendants , and, also failed to induct, the, defendants as partners in the firm. It is also admitted, that, a sum of Rs.10

lacs, was, paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. However, a sum of Rs. 10 lacs was wrongly taken, by the plaintiff, despite, the fact of his being

aware qua his not holding title over the suit property, and, the plaintiff intentionally withheld the true facts. It is further not denied that a sum of Rs. 10

lacs was to be paid on or before 21.11.2008, but the same was not paid to the plaintiff , as he has not performed his part of, the apt, obligation

fastened, in, the agreement, hence, the defendants were not required to pay the second, and, third installments as alleged. Since the contract was

vitiated on account of fraud, the plaintiff, is, not entitled to claim forfeiture of Rs. 10 lacs received by him, and, on the contrary, the plaintiff, is liable to

repay, a sum of Rs. 20 lacs being the double amount of the part of the sale consideration, received by him on 22.8.2008, as per the terms of the

agreement. It is also admitted by the defendants, that, possession of the suit property, was, handed over to them on 22.8.2008. It is further averred,

that, defendants were not handed over 15 lacs baked and 10 lacs unbaked bricks. It is further averred that the licence, which was valid up to

31.3.2009, was handed, over to the defendants alongwith chimney and damaged labour huts.

However, no tools and equipments were handed over to them. It is further averred that lease land has been taken over the land owners to whom it

belonged, because, the plaintiff has failed to get the licence of the brick kiln, renewed, and the land owners have after leveling the same started

cultivating the same. It is denied, that the defendants sold the stock of 15 lacs baked bricks for price of Rs.25 lacs, and, further sold 10 lacs unbaked

bricks, after, utilizing coal and fire wood, from, the stock for further amount of Rs.18 lacs. It is also denied that the defendants have failed, to, honour

the terms of the agreement and are also liable to pay for the aforesaid baked, and, unbaked bricks at the rate of Rs. 1450/Â and Rs. 300/Â per

thousand, respectively. The defendant on the other hand alleged, that, there were only one lac raw bricks bricks whereof are badly damaged, and,

besides them, there were about ten lacs baked bricks, on, the spot. It is also averred by the defendants, that they were always ready and willing to

perform, their part of the agreement, but on account of the defect in the title, of the plaintiff, the agreement became unenforceable. It has also been

admitted by the defendants, that, the plaintiff had sent a legal notice to them. In reply to the same the plaintiff, was, asked to perform his part of the

agreement, before, receiving the remaining sale consideration. The suit is alleged to be barred by limitation. The remaining averments made in the

plaint are denied by the defendants and thus they pray for dismissal of the suit.

The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendants wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement and reÂaffirmed

and reÂ​asserted the averments, made in the plaint.

On the pleadings of the parties, this Court, on, 25.11.2010, struck the following issues interÂ​se the parties at contest:Â​

Whether the plaintiff is owner of the brick kiln subject matter of agreement dated 22.8.2008? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the specific performance of the agreement dated 22.8.2008 and is entitled to payment of Rs.33.75 lacs from the

defendants, as alleged? OPP

Whether the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform the agreement as alleged? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.30 lacs from the defendants on account of the price of 15 lacs baked and 10 lacs unbaked

bricks, chimney, labour, huts, coal, frames, fire wood and utensils etc, as alleged? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to forfeit a sum of Rs. 10 lacs as alleged? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the suit property mentioned in paraÂ​1 of the plaint? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction? OPP

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief of mandatory injunction? OPP

Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit as alleged? OPD

Whether the agreement dated 22.2.2008is a result of misrepresentation and fraud practiced by the plaintiff over the defendants and the agreement

is void? OPD

Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

Whether the suit is bad for nonÂ​joinder of M/s Sada Shiv Brick Company and its partners? OPD

Relief.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and, also gone through the entire case file carefully. For the reasons to be recorded hereinÂinÂ‐

after, my findings on the aforesaid issues are as follows:Â​

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Relief: The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.

REASONS FOR FINDINGS ISSUES NUMBER 1 TO 11 and 13.

Since, issues aforesaid are interconnected, thereupon they are amenable, for theirs’ being, hence, cumulatively decided.

An agreement, to, sell in respect whereof, a decree of specific performance, is, espoused to be renderable, by this Court, is, comprised in Ex. PÂ‐

1/A. It is executed interÂse the plaintiff, and, the defendants. The date of execution thereof, is, 22.8.2008. Apparently, it is unÂcontroverted, that, the

possession of the suit land, is, with the defendants. Prior to the relevant contract, of sale executed, interÂse, the plaintiff and the defendants, and, as,

unraveled by Ex.DA, one Ashok Jindal, proprietor of the brick kiln, hence, thereunder rather constituting the plaintiff, as, his General power of

Attorney, for, all the purpose(s), as, embodied therein. The aforesaid exhibit, is, not proven to be either revoked, or, cancelled pointedly at, the time

contemporaneous, to, the subsequent thereto execution, of, agreement, of, 22.8.2008, agreement whereof, is borne in Ex.PÂ1/A. However, the

relevant agreement of sale borne, in, Ex.PÂ1/A, as, apparently executed interÂse the plaintiff, with, the defendants, is, not under any apposite

authorization, hence, bestowed upon him, under Ex.P1/E, contrarily rather Ex.P1/E visibly omits to empower him, to, execute Ex.PÂ1/A, in his

individual capacity, as, owner of the Brick kiln. However, the plaintiff, espouses, of his holding possession, right, title and interest, to, rather

independently, hence execute Ex.PÂ1/A, in respect of the suit property, with, the defendants, espousal whereof, is, rested upon Ex. PÂ1/E, sworn by

one Ashok Jindal, on 28.9.2007, (i) whereas with Ex. DA, whereunder, the plaintiff stands constituted as, a, General Power of Attorney, of, one Sh.

Ashok Jindal, (ii) thereupon, it appears, that, the apposite propagation reared by the plaintiff, qua, his on anvil of Ex.PÂ 1/E, rather holding, an

independent right, to, execute Ex.PÂ 1/A, being hence falsified, (iii) rather when though Ex.DA, stood, executed, in contemporaneity, visÂaÂvis, the

execution of the apt affidavit, it hence, rather acquires both truth besides veracity, and, when thereunder, the plaintiff was constituted, by one Shri

Ashok Jindal, as the apt General Power of Attorney,(iv) hence, subsequent thereto, execution of the relevant agreement in his individual

capacity,AND, as, owner thereof, besides, his on anvil thereof, making an espousal, of his holding right, title and interest, to rather make, it, in respect

of the suit property, (v)obviously being gripped, with an entrenched taint, of, vitiation, hence arising from his visible disability, to, execute it, and, his

further concomitant disability, to, also thereafter hence execute a registered deed of conveyance, in, his individual capacity, with, the defendants (vi)

Moreso when, the, General Power of Attorney as embodied in Ex.DA is not proven by any cogent evidence, to hence stand cancelled. In aftermath,

rendition of a decree for specific performance, is unÂ​renderable, visÂ​aÂ​vis, the plaintiff.

In conjunction with the aforesaid inference, this Court also bears in mind, qua, one Garibu hence executing a lease agreement, with M/S Sada Shiv

Bricks Company, and, the longevity, of the aforesaid lease agreement, being up to 30.9.2016, (i) thereupon while therewith conjoining, the aforesaid

trite factum, begets an inference of any representation, by the plaintiff, of, his being owner of the aforeÂreferred brick kiln, hence to acquire tenacity,

reiteratedly enjoined its adduction, into evidence (ii) given only upon, the apposite aforeÂstated lease deed, being adduced into evidence, and, hence its

making unfoldment(s) qua all the rights’, being preserved therein, visÂaÂvis, one or more partners thereof, to, bestow rights as owner, upon, the

plaintiff (iii) or unless any rights standing exclusively embodied therein, visÂaÂvis, one Ashok Jindal, one of the partner(s), of the aforeÂreferred firm,

to, induct the plaintiff, as a subÂlessee rather would alone give leverage qua empowerments,if any, visÂaÂvis the apt factum, being validly bestowed

upon, the plaintiff, (iii) whereas nonÂadduction into evidence of the apposite lease deed, executed interÂse Garibu and aforeÂreferred partnership

firm, rather constrains an inference of one Ashok Jindal though inducted by Garibu, only as a lessee, visÂaÂvis, the land whereon, the aforesaid Brick

kiln was installed, yet, his being interdicted, to, contrary therewithin, hence create any interest visÂaÂvis the suit property, larger than the one,

wherewith he stood vested, in the soil, whereon the raw material, for hence operating the brick kiln, rather was existing. Reiteratedly, the apt

tendering(s) besides exhibition, thereof by the litigants’ concerned, was, imperative for, hence, enabling this Court, to, therefrom rather fathom, qua

any rights, to induct sub lesses’, being reserved therein to be conferable, by, one Ashok Jindal. Also reiteratedly, omission(s) thereof rather also

foreclose, an adverse inference, against the plaintiff, qua it not containing, any recital, whereby any authorization was conferred or bestowed upon the

apt authorized, partner(s) of M/S Sada Shiv Brick company, for selling, the suit property, to the plaintiff. Apart therefrom, even if the aforesaid,

omission, has sequelled the drawing, of an adverse inference visÂaÂvis the plaintiff, it was yet curable by the plaintiff, by his concerting to add, in, the

array of coÂdefendants, one Ashok Jindal, and other partners of the firm hence, carrying the aforesaid nomenclature, (iv) thereupon, for, rather

enabling him/them, to, file the apposite writtenÂstatement(s), besides, for enabling him/them, to, contest the veracity of execution, of the apposite

affidavit, (v) especially when, on, anchor thereof he/they may concert, to, rip apart, the, efficacy of subsequent thereto, hence, execution of the

apposite power of attorney, (vi) besides, his/theirs stepping into the witness box, was, hence imperative, for lending succor, visÂaÂvis, the apt

therewith pleadings, and, for the drawing of an inevitable firm conclusion, visÂaÂvis, the tenacity hence acquired, by subsequent thereto affidavit,

executed on 22.8.2008, by one Ashok Jindal, (vii) dehors non adduction ,of, the apt lease agreement, executed, interÂ​se, one Ashok Jindal with Garibu,

demonstrative qua whether any rights being therein preserved therein, visÂaÂvis, one Ashok Jindal, for the latter proceeding, to bestow or confer

power, if any, upon the plaintiff, hence, to execute a valid contract of sale, with, the defendants. All the aforesaid, omissions’, also constrain this

Court, to, draw an adverse inference qua the plaintiff, rather not holding, any, absolute right title, and, interest in the suit property, hence his being

disabled, to, execute the sale agreement, with the defendants nor his thereafter being empowered to execute a registered deed of conveyance,

reiteratedly hence, the, decree for specific performance, as claimed by him, is unrenderable visÂ​aÂ​vis him.

Be that as it may, accentuated vigor visÂaÂvis the aforesaid inference, is, galvanized, by the plaintiff, while being subjected, to, crossÂ‐

examination by the learned counsel, for the defendants, his acquiescing qua the relevant brick kiln (a)being owned by one Ashok Jindal (b) it being run

under a partnership deed (c) the apt licence being also in the name of the firm (d) it not being sold to him by the firm. Further more, he also acquiesces

therein, of, it being sold to him by Ashok Jindal, under a Power of attorney executed, in his favour. The effect of the aforesaid acquiescence(s), is, of

thereupon there being hence a peremptory obligation, rather hence cast upon the plaintiff, to, place on record, the partnership deed, and, with the lease

deed, especially, when it was executed interÂse Garibu, with a partnership firm, and, also with the apt license stood issued by the competent authority,

visÂaÂvis, the partnership firm. However, none of the aforesaid documents, were adduced into evidence, thereupon vigor, if any, of the affidavit,

whereunder, one Ashok Jindal, one of the partners of the partnership firm, vis aÂvis whom, one Garibu executed a lease deed, whereunder the apt

conferment, is bestowed, upon the plaintiff, rather is omnibously denuded. More so, when there, is, no reference in the apposite affidavit, of, one

Ashok Jindal, holding, the apposite authorization, from, other coÂpartners of the partnership firm, to, sell, the suit property visÂaÂvis the plaintiff,

besides, when obviously one Ashok Jindal, did not, hence hold any apt authorization, to, bestow all the apt rights, title and interest, as, owner, rather

upon the plaintiff. The further concomitant sequel thereof, is, that, hence with a clear pronounced, disability hence forbidding the plaintiff, to, execute

the sale agreement, with the defendants, thereupon his being disabled, to claim rendition of a decree, of specific performance, visÂaÂvis, the suit

property.

Apart therefrom, the, apposite licence, visÂaÂvis, the afore nomenclatured brick kiln, held longevity only up to March, 2009, whereafter, the

licence remained unÂrenewed, (i) thereupon, as aforeÂstated, with the apposite licence being issued rather in the name, of, the partnership firm, and,

the latter remaining unÂarrayed, as, a party to the lis, (ii) thereupon, it would be grossly improper, for this Court, to, also pronounce a direction, upon,

an unÂarrayed litigant, to, ensure renewal of the apposite licence. Want whereof, rather begets an apt corollary qua hence, this Court, being

constrained, to, pronounce a decree of specific performance qua the firm, for it, in, consonance with the apt contract of sale, hence, rather executing,

a, registered deed of conveyance, with, the defendants, whereas, for all the aforesaid reasons, it held the apposite singular besides apt empowerment,

to execute it, AND also held the apt legal capacity to execute a registered deed of conveyance, visÂ​aÂ​vis, the suit property, with the defendants.

In support of the, claim, for rendition of a decree, for pecuniary damages, the plaintiff was enjoined, to, adduce potent evidence qua the number of

baked, and, unbaked bricks, lying on the suit property, tritely at the time contemporaneous, visÂaÂvis, delivery of possession, of the suit property, by

the plaintiff visÂaÂvis the defendants, in respect thereof, the plaintiff has depended, upon, Ex. PWÂ2/A proven by PW2. However, no credence can

be imputed thereto, given PWÂ2, in his crossÂexamination, upon, an apposite affirmative suggestion, being put to him, of stock and sale register, bill

books and other account books, being maintained at the brick kiln, his rendering, his apt acquiesces thereto, (i) thereupon with the aforesaid, hence,

constituting the best documentary evidence in respect of, qua at the time contemporaneous, to, execution of PÂWÂ2/A, whereat, the possession of

the suit property, was, delivered to the plaintiff, the aforeÂstated stock rather existing thereat, (i) contrarily, withholding thereof, generates, drawing of

an adverse inference, against, the plaintiff, (ii) besides with PWÂ2 also making deposition, comprised, in his crossÂexamination, of Ex.PWÂ2/A, not,

carrying any date wise reflections, besides its not carrying, his signatures, thereupon it appears, of his surmisely preparing, it,without his tallying and

collating, all entires borne therein, visÂaÂvis, the entries occurring in aforeÂreferred best documentary evidence, as comprised in stock, sale register,

bill books, and other accounts books, maintained at the aforesaid kiln, wherein entries were made on a day to day basis. Consequently, any claim for

rendition of a decree, for computing, in consonance with Ex.PWÂ2/A, of pecuniary charges visÂaÂvis the plaintiff, cannot be accepted All issues are

accordingly decided.

Issue No. 12

Since the averments existing in the plaint make an evident display of the suit being properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction,

hence this issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff, and, against the defendants. Relief:

In view of the above, the present suit is dismissed, alongwith, all applications, if any. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. No costs.