SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Raj) 1071

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
ARUN BHANSALI, J.
Rohtash - Appellant
Vs.
Ramkishan - Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1852 of 2018
Decided On : 13-09-2018

Advocates Appeared:
Suresh Shrimali, Adv., G.R. Bhari, Adv.

An agreement to sale transcribed on a pre-signed stamp paper is prima facie invalid.

Headnote:

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - ORDER XXXIX RULES 1 & 2 CPC - SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF AN AGREEMENT - REJECTION OF APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION - VALIDITY OF AGREEMENT - POSSESSION OF LAND - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE AND IRREPARABLE LOSS - INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENT - SECTION 10 STAMP ACT, 1899 - SECTION 54 TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - SECTION 38 SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SUMMARY OF THE ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED AND DISCUSSED BY THE COURT.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 18.03.2015 in respect of agriculture land. Plaintiff claimed that the land was in the khatedari of the defendant, and an agreement for a consideration of Rs. 15 lacs was executed, with Rs. 11 lacs received by the defendant and possession of the land handed over to the plaintiff. The balance amount of Rs. 4 lacs was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. The defendant denied the execution of the agreement and claimed that he had given 1/2 share of the land to one Shyolal & his son and that he had submitted an application before the Court of Additional District Judge No.1 for authorising one Praveen Kumar to protect his agriculture land.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the agreement was transcribed on a pre-signed stamp paper, which raised doubts about its validity. The court also found that the plaintiff had not placed any material on record to support his plea pertaining to the possession of the land. The court held that the trial court did not commit any error in rejecting the application for temporary injunction.

Issues: 1. Whether the agreement to sale was valid and enforceable? 2. Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the land in question? 3. Whether the balance of convenience and irreparable loss favored the grant of temporary injunction?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the agreement to sale was prima facie invalid as it was transcribed on a pre-signed stamp paper. 2. The court held that the plaintiff had not placed any material on record to support his plea pertaining to the possession of the land. 3. The court held that the balance of convenience and irreparable loss did not favor the grant of temporary injunction.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's order rejecting the application for temporary injunction.

JUDGMENT

Arun Bhansali, J.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 CPC has been rejected.

2. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 18.03.2015 in respect of agriculture land situated at Chak 2, RMS, Parlika. It was inter-alia claimed that the land in question is in khatedari of defendant, for which agreement for a consideration of Rs. 15 lacs was executed and a sum of Rs. 11 lacs was received by the defendant from the plaintiff and the possession of the land in question was handed over to the plaintiff, balance amount of Rs. 4 lacs was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed.

3. It was contended by the plaintiff that he approached the defendant to get the sale deed executed but defendant though assured that he was prepared to execute the sale deed, but on the pretext of family dispute sought time for doing the needful. It was further averred that in May, 2016, a criminal case regarding murder of defendant's wife was registered, whereafter it was claimed that after the case would be decided, the defendant would do the needful. It was then contended that on 02.05.2018, the plaintiff met defendant in Sub-Jail, Nohar where he was in detention since 12.05.2016, he refused to execute the sale deed; it was indicated as the cause for seeking specific performance and relief for permanent injunction was also sought.

4. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 CPC was filed seeking temporary injunction against the defendant from executing the sale deed in favour of any one else and not to raise loans on the agriculture land and also sought restraint against interference in his possession.

5. The defendant filed his response, resisted the case of the plaintiff and denied the execution for the agreement to sale and claimed that before the defendant was detained, he had given 1/2 share of the land to one Shyolal & his son and that on 30.05.2018, he had submitted an application before the Court of Additional District Judge No.1 for authorising one Praveen Kumar to protect his agriculture land.

6. The plea was also raised that as the defendant had necessity of some money and when he sought help from the plaintiff, an affidavit was sought from the defendant, which was given on a stamp of Rs. 10/-.

7. Submissions were also made that 1/2 share of the land was sold to Keshrichand for fulfilling the requirements of money and when the stamp paper was sought back, the same has been misused.

8. The trial court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that though the defendant has accepted his signatures on the agreement, however, the affidavits of the witnesses to the agreement were not produced and therefore, the validity of the same would be required to be determined by the Court. It was further observed that though plea of possession has been raised by the plaintiff, no clear facts in this regard have been averred and an application seeking protection of the land was also moved before the trial court, wherein one Praveen Kumar was authorised to do the same, prima facie the plaintiff was not in possession of the land in question and therefore, there was no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff.

9. The issues pertaining to balance of convenience and irreparable loss were also held against the plaintiff and the application was rejected.

10. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court committed error in rejecting the application filed by the appellant. It was submitted that the defendant has admitted his signatures on the agreement and has taken a false plea regarding executing the said document as an affidavit for obtaining loan from the plaintiff. It was submitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the land in question pursuant to the agreement and that merely becau













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top