The sufficiency of evidence to prove the execution of an agreement to sell and discrepancies in possession and execution of the agreement are crucial in specific performance cases.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against judgment and decree dt. 11.8.2016 passed by Additional District Judge No.2, Sikar in Civil Regular Suit No.(140/2008) 218/2009 whereby suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance, cancellation of sale deed dt.7.9.2006 and permanent injunction has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, cancellation of sale deed dt. 7.9.2006 and permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) stating therein that defendant No.1 was having 2/5th share in the land of khasra No.151 to 157 and 154/3847 measuring Rakbha 23.8500 hectare and she was also having khatedari rights in the land of khasra no.161, 162, 163 and 164 measuring rakbha 2.1300 hectare situated in Village Khatushyam Ji Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar. On 5.7.2006, defendant No.1 had entered into an agreement to sell with the plaintiff to sale the aforesaid land for a sale consideration of Rs.29,52,001/-and executed the same on five non-judicial stamp papers of Rs.20/-each, got notarized them from Notary Public at Sumerpur and handed over the possession of the land to the plaintiff. It was further mentioned that it was agreed that registry thereof shall be done in favour of plaintiff at Ramgarh but due to greediness, the defendant No.1 sold the land in question to the defendant No.2 by two registered sale deeds dt. 7.9.2006. It was prayed that defendant No.1 was incompetent to handover the possession of the land in question to defendant No.2 because defendant had already executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff, so suit of the plaintiff be decreed.

3. Defendant No.1 had filed the written statement and denied the averments of the plaintiff stating that she had not executed any agreement to sell dt. 5.7.2006 in favour of the plaintiff and had not received any sale consideration of Rs.29,52,001/-and she had not handed over the possession of the land in question to the plaintiff. She further stated that she had sold the disputed land by two registered sale deed dt. 7.9.2006 to defendant No.2 and handed over the possession to him. Defendant No.1 also stated in the written statement that her brother and some other person had forgedly prepared the said agreement to sell dt. 5.7.2006 on the pretext of sanctioning loan and government aid. Defendant No.2 had filed the separate written statement and stated that he is bona-fide purchaser so suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.

4. Learned trial court has framed the following issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties:-

(1) Whether on 5.7.2006 the defendant No.1 had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiff with regard to agricultural land situated in village Khatushyam Ji Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar, as described in para no.1 of the plaint for a sale consideration of Rs.29,52,001/-on five non judicial stamp papers of Rs.20-20 each and got it notarized the same from notary public? For this reason, the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the said agreement to sell.

2. Whether from inception, the plaintiff was ready and willing to comply the agreement to sell dt. 5.7.2006?

3. Whether defendant No.1 illegally and unauthorizedly had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the defendant No.2 with regard to agricultural land, as described in para no.1 of the plaint, for which agreement to sell had already been executed in favour of the plaintiff on 5.7.2006 and for this reason, it was liable to be cancelled?

4. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to get decree of permanent injunction against the defendant in relation to disputed agricultural land?

5. Whether the plaintiff’s suit was filed on sufficient court fees?

6. Whether on paying the sale consideration, the defendant No.2 was bona fide purchaser and for this reason, suit against him was not maintainable?

7. Whether each o