Allahbad High Court
TRIVEDI
Manohar Lal - Appellant
Versus
Rajeshwari Devi - Respondent
Decided On : 03/31/1976
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - AGREEMENT TO SELL LAND - REQUIREMENTS OF FORMS 47 AND 48 OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - FAILURE TO CONFORM - DISMISSAL OF SUIT - SECTION 16 (C) OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land allegedly executed by the defendant. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court dismissed it, holding that the execution of the agreement was not proved. The plaintiff appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the finding of the lower appellate court on the question of execution of the agreement was a finding of fact which could not be interfered with in second appeal. However, the High Court also held that the suit was liable to be dismissed for failure to conform to the requirements prescribed in Forms 47 and 48 of the First Schedule of the Civil Procedure Code.
Issues: Whether the finding of the lower appellate court on the question of execution of the agreement was a finding of fact which could not be interfered with in second appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the finding of the lower appellate court on the question of execution of the agreement was a finding of fact which could not be interfered with in second appeal. The High Court also held that the suit was liable to be dismissed for failure to conform to the requirements prescribed in Forms 47 and 48 of the First Schedule of the Civil Procedure Code.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
2. The defence of defendant No. 1 Smt. Rajeshwari Devi was that she never executed an agreement to sell land in favour of plaintiff Manohar Lal and that by exercise of fraud he had obtained her thumb impression on certain papers. She denied having received Rs. 1,000 as earnest money. The trial court disbelieved the plea of fraud, held that there was a contract between Manohar Lal and Smt. Rajeshwari Devi under which she promised to transfer the disputed land in favour of the appellant and awarded a decree for specific performance against defendant No. 1 only.
3. Defendant No. 1 appealed and the lower appellate court allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs suit holding that he was not satisfied that there was a contract of sale between Manohar Lal and respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant assailed before me correctness of finding of the learned lower court to the effect that execution of an agreement to sell land by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff was not proved to its satisfaction. It was submitted that the lower appellate court had upheld the findings of the trial court to the effect that Smt. Rajeshwari Devi was not a minor at the time of execution of the sale deed as contended and that the theory of fraud set up on her behalf also appeared to be improper. I am of the opinion that the submission made on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted as the finding of the lower appellate court on the question of execution of agreement by defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant is a finding on a question of fact. It cannot be said to be a perverse finding notwithstanding that the story of fraud set up by Smt. Rajeshwari Devi was disbelieved. Smt. Rajeshwari Devi was admittedly an illiterate lady and the burden of proving intelligent and conscious execution of agreement of sale by her in favour of Manohar Lal obviously lay on the latter. The lower appellate court was, therefore entitled to consider the probabilities of the case, as also the conduct of Manohar Lal in determining the question whether Smt. Rajeshwari Devi executed any agreement promising to sell land in favour of Manohar Lal. The lower appellate court in this connection considered a number of circumstances, not the least important of which was that Manohar Lal was a petition-writer of about 35 years standing. On his own showing in 1962 respondent No. 2 had contracted to sell this very land acting as guardian for his wife, respondent No. 1, after being paid an advance of Rs. 500 and subsequently he refused to perform the contract and yet Manohar Lal should have readily agreed to advance a sum of Rs. 1,000 to respondent No. 1 when she is said to have paid him a sudden visit at his village house without Manohar Lal taking even the precaution of getting the agreement of sale registered and the payment of Rs. 1,000 made before the Sub-Registrar is too improbable. The plaintiffs conduct and extraordinary delay in filing the suit for specific performance were also circumstances which could be reasonably taken note of as factors discrediting the plaintiffs case. I am therefore, of the view that the finding of the District Judge to the effect that the agreement to sell was not proved to have been executed by Smt. Rajeshwari Devi in favour of M
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.