S.S. BYAS, J.—This is a vendor-defendants appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge(1), Alwar dated October 14, 1982, by which the plaintiffs suit for specific performance of a contract of sale in respect of immovable property viz. Khatedar Rights in the agricultural lands was decreed with costs.

2. Plaintiff Balmukand brought a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale against the defendant in the court of District Judge, Alwar on August 19, 1980. The case set up by him was that the defendant is a Khatedar tenant of the seven fields described in para 1 of the plaint. On July 1,1979, she made an agreement with the plaintiff to sell her Khatedari rights of these fields to him for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and executed agreement (Ex. 1) on the same day in his favour. The price was paid to her in full by him at that very time and she put him in possession of the fields. As per terms of the agreement, she was to obtain "no dues certificate" from the Co-operative Society and execute the sale deed in his favour as and when he required her to do so and get it registered. After some time in, in the month of Kartik, he called upon her to execute the sale-deed but she did nothing. He then served a notice in writing to her on July 2, 1980 reiterating his demand for the execution of sale-deed and its registration. The attempt proved abortive. He, thereupon, instituted the suit and claimed the following reliefs :-

(1) The defendant be directed to execute the sale-deed in his favour and get it registered; and

(2) in case, his possession over the fields was not established, the possession over them be delivered to him.

The suit was resisted by the defendant on a complete and categorical denial. All the material averments of the plaintiff were traversed and it was pleaded that her deceased-husband was the Khatedar tenant of the fields in dispute. On his death, the tenancy rights devolved on her and her three daughters-Gulkandi, Bhoti and Govindi. She denied that she entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs to sell her Khatedari rights of the fields in dispute to him for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- or executed agreement (Ex. 1) in his favour. It was further stated that her daughter Bhoti relinquishing her rights in these fields in favour of her another daughter Gulkandi. The fields were, thus, in possession of Gulkandi, who was cultivating them. The plaintiff and his son once confined her in a room. If her thumb impression was taken on any paper by the plaintiff while she was in her confinement, it had no legal sanctity. The case came for trial before the learned Additional District Judge, who raised the following issues :-

(1) Whether the defendant made an agreement to sell the fields described in para 1 of the plaint to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 20000/- on 1.7.79 and received the amount of Rs. 20000/- thereunder and whether she executed the agreement and affixed her thumb impression on it and delivered the possession of the fields to the plaintiff ?

(2) Whether the three daughters of the deceased Shri Moti (defendants husband) are his heirs in addition to the defendant and whether Shri Moti gave the fields in dispute to Gulkandi for cultivation and whether she was in their possession, and if so, with what effect on the suit ?

3. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence. On the conclusion of trial, the learned District Judge answered both the issues in the plaintiffs favour. The suit was consequently decreed in terms prayed for. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree, the defendant has come up in appeal.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

5. In assailing the judgment and decree, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the defendant is that the whole approach of the court-below was erroneous. It was argued that agreement (Ex.1) was wrongly taken as executed by the defendant. The defendant is an old and illiterate village

Click Here to Read the rest of this document