N. C. Jain, J-This first appeal has .been filed by the defendant against judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for specific performance of contract for the sale of a plot described in the agreement of sale.

2. The case of the plaintiff/respondent as disclosed in the plaint was that the defendant entered into an agreement of sale for a plot of land measuring 15 lechas out of 2 kathas covered by KP Patta No. 25 Dag No.466 and 467 of Village Maligaon Mouza Jalukbari in Guwahati. The agreement was that the plaintiff would give a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 (Rupees three lakhs) which was initially less than the aforesaid amount. A sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) was given as advance amount on 13.3.93. On various other dates, some more amount was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant which totaled Rs. 47,000 (Rupees forty seven thousand).

3. The defendant/appellant contested the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that it was not maintainable and that the suit was barred by limitation. The, defendant, however, admitted the receipt of Rs. 10,000. It is the further plea of the defendant that the plaintiff to pay the consideration money at the relevant time for registration of the sale deed and that he is not bound to execute the sale deed.

4. The trial Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties struck the following four issues :

1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

2. Whether the defendant received Rs. 10,000 from the plaintiff on 13.3.93 and acknowledged the receipt of the same by putting his signature on back side of the agreement ?

3. Whether the plaintiff was ready to perform her part of the agreement and if the defendant refused the execute the sale deed as per agreement ?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief as claimed for ?

5. The trial Court found all the issues against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. It has been found that the defendant received a total sum of Rs. 43,000 on various occasions and that the suit was within limitation. It has further been found that the plaintiff was ready to perform her part of the agreement and that it was the defendant who did not execute the sale deed in accordance with the agreement. Under issue No.4, the plaintiff has been found entitled to the relief as claimed in the plaint.

6. Some of the facts have not been disputed during the course of arguments before us. It has been admitted that after the grant of decree, the sale deed had already been executed by the Court as was observed by the trial Court after the necessary deposit was made by the plaintiff. The execution of the agreement was also not disputed during the course of arguments. Admittedly, the defendant has not stepped into the witness box. Even the plaintiff's witness who was the Attorney holder, was not cross examined.

7. Learned counsel Sri K. Sarmah has vehemently .argued that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief under issue No.4 on the basis of the statement of the Attorney holder. The precise argument of the counsel for the appellant is that as the plaintiff has not stepped into the witness box, the suit could not be decreed as the facts were within the knowledge of the plaintiff only and that the Attorney holder could not depose regarding the factual position in his statement. The counsel has cited the case of Ram Prasad vs. Hari Narain & others reported in AIR 1998 Rajasthan 185 for the proposition that the Power of Attorney holder is not entitled to appear as witness for the party appointing him and that the word

'acts' incorporated in Order 3 Rule 2 would not include act of Power of Attorney holder to appear as witness on behalf of a party.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent Mr. SP Roy, assisted by Mr. C. Baruah, while countering the argument of the counsel for the appellant has argued that the Attorney holder is a competent witness under section 118 of the Evidence Act. The counsel has referred to the provisions of section

Click Here to Read the rest of this document