D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is plaintiffs appeal against judgment and decree dated 18-12-1979 of Civil Judge (SD), Nadiad dismissing the appellants suit for declaration, specific performance, refund of earnest money and for the payment of damages together with interest.

( 2 ) ). The brief facts are that initially the plaintiff appellant filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 17-12-1996 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendants No. 2 and 3 is without consideration, illegal, null and void. Admittedly, the plaintiff appellant was not party to the sale deed. During the pendency of the suit, application for amendment of the plaint was moved which was allowed and additional reliefs of specific performance and in the alternative refund of earnest money were also added. The case of the plaintiff appellant was that the defendant No. 1 executed an agreement to sell in his favour on 13-8-1976 for a consideration of Rs. 15,000. 00 and agreed to sell her house for this amount and received earnest money amounting to Rs. 5,000. 00. It was alleged that subsequently on 17-12-1976 the defendant No. 1 executed sell deed for the same house in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 for Rs. 20,000. 00 and this sale deed is illegal without consideration and null and void. According to the plaintiff, it was executed to defeat the claim of the plaintiff accrued on the basis of agreement to sell executed in his favour by the defendant No. 1 on 13-8-96. The plaintiff therefore prayed that the sale deed be declared illegal and void being without consideration. He further prayed for decree for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 13-8-76 be granted and in the alternative, refund of earnest money of Rs. 5,000. 00 be ordered in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 be further ordered to pay damages of Rs. 5000. 00 together with interest.

( 3 ) ). The defendant No. 1 in her written statement denied all these allegations and pleaded that the sale deed was executed after receiving full consideration of Rs. 20,000. 00 and that it is incorrect that the sale deed is without consideration or null and void. She also pleaded that she did not execute any agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff nor she received any earnest money amounting to Rs. 5,000. 00 from the plaintiff. She therefore pleaded that the suit is liable to be dismissed.

( 4 ) ). The trial court framed number of issues and having taken all issues into consideration, answered all the issues in negative. Consequently, the suit was dismissed by the trial court. It is therefore this appeal.

( 5 ) I have heard Shri B. J. Shelat, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. B. Munshi, learned counsel for and on behalf of Mr. A. J. Patel for the respondents.

( 6 ) AFTER going through the judgment and material on record, I found that the trial court has rightly held that the plaintiff failed to establish execution of agreement to sell Exh. 45 and further failed to establish that he paid earnest money amounting to Rs. 5,000. 00 to the defendant No. 1. The trial Court has also taken into consideration various contradictions in evidence produced on record and has also noticed that the stamp papers were suspicious. It has been observed by the trial court that the agreement to sell was executed on 13-8-76. According to the plaintiff, the stamp papers were purchased on the same date viz. on 13-8-1976. The trial court however found that one stamp paper of Rs. 2. 00 denomination was purchased on 12-12-1976, whereas, another stamp paper of Rs. 1. 25 ps was purchased on 12-8-76. The trial court in these circumstances has rightly drawn adverse inference for non examination of the stamp vendor to clarify whether the endorsement regarding the date of purchase of his stamp papers was mistaken and the mistake was on the part of the stamp vendor. If the stamp vendor was not examined, the trial court was justified in drawing inference that these two stamp papers were suspicio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document