IMPORTANT POINT
The presumption of validity of a registered agreement for sale cannot be rebutted without substantial evidence, and the burden of proof lies on the party challenging it.

JUDGMENT :

(Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

The Appeal

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the defendant of Original Suit No. 974 of 2014 challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees whereby, respectively, the suit for specific performance of a registered agreement for sale dated 25.04.2014 filed by the plaintiffs-respondents, has been decreed and Civil Appeal filed against the said decision has been dismissed.

Plaint case

2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforesaid suit on the basis of registered agreement for sale dated 25.04.2014 said to have been executed by the defendant-appellant agreeing to sell 500 Sq. yards of his Bhumidhari land bearing Arazi No. 129-A covered by Khata No. 179. It was stated that despite the agreement, sale deed was not executed by the defendant-appellant and when the plaintiff-respondents issued notice dated 29.09.2014 asking him to execute sale deed and, thereafter, presented themselves on 22.10.2014 before the Sub Registrar’s office with remaining sum and miscellaneous expenses, the defendant-appellant did not appear for executing the sale deed and, hence, the suit was filed.

Defence

3. The defendant-appellant filed written statement stating that execution of agreement for sale was a fraudulent exercise, inasmuch as, the plaintiffs carried him to the Registrar’s office for witnessing some sale deed but, under the garb of said act, an agreement was got executed. It was further pleaded that the land in dispute being co-owned by various persons and having not been partitioned so far, no necessity to execute the sale deed ever arose. Payment of part of sale consideration was also denied.

Defence case dislodged by both the courts

4. The trial court, after framing seven issues and after discussing oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit by judgment dated 15.12.2022 granting a decree for specific performance of the agreement. Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2023 filed against the said decision has also been dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2024.

Counsel heard

5. I have heard Shri Prem Prakash Chaudhary, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and Shri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents on the point of admission.

Submissions on behalf of appellant

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that suit could not be decreed for various reasons; first, that the statement contained at page No. 3 of the agreement for sale as regards cash payment of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lac) by the plaintiffs to the defendant was not proved; secondly, the land forming subject matter of the agreement having not been a specific portion of the land co-owned by various co-sharers, no sale could be executed and, therefore, agreement becomes invalid; thirdly, the witnesses produced by the plaintiffs’ side made inconsistent statements regarding payment of advance money; fourthly, bare affidavit filed by PW-1 would not be admissible in evidence unless it is acknowledged by him on appearing in witness box; fifthly, there was no evidence to prove payment of Rs.5,00,000/- before the Sub Registrar and, lastly, burden to prove that the agreement was validly executed would lay upon the plaintiffs, but the same has wrongly been shifted upon the defendant-appellant, who had termed execution of the agreement as a fraudulent act. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed upon the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Ameer Trading Corporation Ltd. Vs Shapoorji Data Processing Ltd, (2004) 1 SCC 702, particularly, paragraph No. 31 thereof and also judgment of this Court in Kishan Chand and others vs Dr. Kailash Chandra Gupta and others, 2010 (2) ADJ 666, particularly, paragraphs No. 37 and 38 thereof.

Submissions on behalf of respondents

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents argues that the agreement for sale being a registered document, strong presumption exists as regards its validity, both on the point of execution as well as its contents and, hence, the ple