Ramkaran vs Jagdeep Singh

B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—Heard Sri Sah Om Prakash Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Raj Kumar Kesari, learned counsel for the respondents.

This is the second appeal arising out of the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dated 10.2.2017 and 22.2.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2015 (Ramkaran v. Jagdeep Singh) upholding the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 30.11.2015 and 11.12.2015 passed in Original Suit No. 264 of 2004 (Jagdeep Singh v. Ramkaran).

The plaintiff filed original suit no.264 of 2004 for a direction to the defendant appellant to execute the sale deed in respect of the land in question in pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 04.08.2003 entered into between the defendant and the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff was that an agreement of sale was executed on 04.08.2003 duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar in respect of the land in question on payment of Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. The rent of the land situated in Village-Laalpur, Post and Tehsil-Hapur, District-Ghaziabad was stated to be Rs.22.60. This Khasra no.61, area 0.672 hectares was stated to be mortgaged by the plaintiff for purposes of purchasing a tractor which was informed by the plaintiff to the defendant. The agreement was valid for a period of 11 months up to 3.7.2004 and during this period the defendant was required to prepare all the papers in respect of the land in question. According to the plaintiff he told the defendant several times to get the papers prepared and get the sale deed registered but the defendant kept avoiding the issue. The plaintiff gave two notices through his counsel Sri Moolchand Sharma, Advocate Hapur by registered post to the defendant on 4.06.2004 and 18.06.2004 but it was declined to be accepted by the defendant. The case of the plaintiff was that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but the same was being avoided by the defendant. Thereupon, the plaintiff informed the defendant that he is going to the Sub- Registrar Office, Hapur for execution of the sale deed but the defendant again avoided the issue. Again on 12.07.2004, the plaintiff gave the notice to the defendant through his counsel Sri Ranbir Singh Kashyap, Advocate, Hapur requiring the defendant to come to the office of Sub- Registrar, Hapur on 30.07.2004 to get the sale deed executed but the defendant in clear terms declined to get the sale deed executed.

The defendant filed two written statements in the court below stating that an agreement of sale was executed between him and the plaintiff for payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest and the agreement of sale was also got registered in respect of the plot in question being plot no.61 area 0.672 hectares of which the rent was Rs. 22.60/- and the land was also kept in mortgage. It was also agreed that the defendant who had taken the land for the purchase of tractor would pay the entire loan for which purpose the mortgage of the land in question was created. It was stated that the defendant had taken the money from the plaintiff in order to sell the land to pay up the loan. It was denied that any money had been taken from the plaintiff towards part payment and that out of the amount of Rs. 3,77,900/- which was given by Bank of India, Lalpur Branch through Cheque, only Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid and the remaining was kept by the plaintiff and his witness Sriniwas Sharma.

The trial court framed issues. Issue no.1 was whether the defendant had executed an agreement of sale dated 04.08.2003 in favour of the plaintiff which was duly registered. Issue no.2 was whether the plaintiff was always ready and willing for execution of the agreement of sale dated 04.08.2003. One of the issues was whether the agreement of sale was obtained by the plaintiff by fraud and misrepresentation on the defendant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant on the ground that the defendant had executed an agreement of sale of the land in question for Rs.2,88,000/- of which Rs.2,66,000/- was paid to the defendant by way of part payment and the defendant had agreed to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff before the Sub-Registrar. The plaintiff had sent two notices to the defendant on 04.06.2004 and 18.06.2004 which was refused by the defendant. On 03.07.2004, the plaintiff went to the office of Sub-Registrar and called the defendant there for execution of the sale deed but the defendant did not turn up. The plaintiff marked his attendance and thereafter informed the defendant in the evening that his entire advance would be treated as confiscated. In his written statement the defendant admitted that on 04.08.2003 he had received Rs.2,00,000/- from the plaintiff. He also admitted that he had executed a registered document in respect of the land in question and the plaintiff had informed the defendant that the land in question had been kept in mortgage and that when his entire money is paid the said document would become meaningless. The trial court has also recorded a finding that an agreement of sale was executed on 04.08.2003 which was duly registered and filed as paper no. 11 in which it was specifically written that Ramkaran, the defendant had admitted that the agreement was being executed for sale of land to the plaintiff for Rs. 2,66,000/-. The trial court held that this document is a registered document which also contains the signature and official seal of the Sub-Registrar and therefore, it cannot be said that the said document had been obtained by the plaintiff from the defendant by exercising or playing fraud upon him. The trial court also held that if it was the case of the defendant that this agreement of sale was got executed by the plaintiff by exercising fraud upon him he would have made a complaint to the police authorities in this regard or taken steps for initiating criminal proceedings against the plaintiff but nothing of the kind has been done and therefore, also it cannot be said that the agreement of sale was got executed by the plaintiff by exercising fraud or misrepresentation on the defendant.

With regard to the validity of the agreement of sale, the trial court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff had filed in the court, the original document of agreement of sale which was duly registered before the Sub-Registrar and it was mentioned that Rs.2,66,000/- in cash was paid to Sri Ramkaran in presence of the Sub-Registrar. On the page on which this statement is mentioned, there is no signature of the Sub-Registrar or his official seal but on rest of the document there is the signature of the Sub-Registrar and his official seal. There is no allegation that this page has been interpolated and therefore, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the entire document was signed and witnessed by the Sub-Registrar and his official seal is also there on the document.

The findings of the trial court have been confirmed by the appellate court. Therefore, in view of the clear findings of fact recorded by both the courts below confirming the execution of agreement of sale dated 04.08.2003 between the defendant and the plaintiff, I do not find any good ground to reappraise the evidence and interfere with the findings of the courts below. I do not find any perversity in the judgments of the court below. No substantial question of law arises in the second appeal.

The second appeal lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.