The court upheld that forged agreements are not enforceable, affirming the necessity of valid contracts for specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree of affirmance dated 28.05.2016 passed by the learned District Judge-VI, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 27 of 2015 whereby and where under, the learned first appellate court by a judgment of concurrence has dismissed the appeal on contest.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 106 of 2004 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)-VII, Dhanbad with a prayer for specific performance of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants.

4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the original defendant was the owner of the suit premises. She inducted the plaintiff as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.500/- for a period of seven years. The agreement of lease was executed by the original defendant on 15.12.1997 and since then the plaintiff occupied the premises as a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.500/-. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.28,000/- on 15.12.1997 to the defendant as a security money for the said premises which was to be refunded to the plaintiff without any interest after the expiry of the tenancy period. During the period of tenancy the original defendant wanted to sell and transfer the premises at a total consideration of Rs.1,80,000/- with an understanding that the security money of Rs.28,000/- would be adjusted in the consideration money fixed for the shop premises. The plaintiff paid an advance of Rs.11,000/- on 21.12.1998 in continuation of the agreement and the plaintiff went on paying money as part consideration money to the original defendant on different dates. The defendant acknowledged the receipt of the payment. The plaintiff claimed to have paid altogether Rs.1,41,000/- against the consideration money of Rs.1,80,000/- in respect of the premises. The plaintiff and the original defendant mutually agreed that the balance consideration amount of Rs.39,000/- will be paid by the plaintiff to the original defendant at the time of registration and execution of the sale deed. The plaintiff requested the defendant on several occasions to receive the balance consideration amount of Rs.39,000/- and to execute and register the sale deed but as the defendant avoided the same, hence the suit was filed. Before filing the suit the defendant instituted C.P. Case No. 1154 of 2004 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad implicating the plaintiff and his father. The plaintiff always being ready and willing to pay the balance consideration amount of Rs.39,000/-.

5. In her written statement, the defendant-Laxmi Devi challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds. After her death her son and daughter were substituted and they adopted the written statement filed by her. The defendants pleaded that the documents which is claimed to be the agreement for sale was in fact a forged document, which was prepared for the purpose of the suit. The defendants denied receipt of any consideration or any advance amount from the plaintiff. The defendants requested the plaintiff to collect Rs.28,000/- the security amount, from the defendants, on any day but the plaintiff did not turn up to collect the said security money. The defendants specifically pleaded that all the receipts purported to have been issued by the defendants are manufactured and forged.

6. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court settled the following eight issues:

(I) Is the suit is maintainable in its present form?

(II) Is there is any cause of action for the present suit?

(III) Whether suit is barred by principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence?

(IV) Whether suit is barred by provision of specific performance of contract?

(V) Whether the agreement to sale dated 28/12/2001 is legal and executable by law?

(VI) Whether there is readiness and willingness of plaintiff in performing his part of contrac