2005 Supreme(MP) 151

2005(3) JLJ 111
S.K. Pande, J.
Gaya Prasad (dead) through LRs. v. Banmali
Second Appeal No. 489 of 1990 : against the judgment and decree of II Additional District Judge, Damoh, passed in Civil Appeal No. 1-A of 1988; reversing the judgment and decree passed by V Civil Judge, Class II, Damoh, in Civil Suit No. 15A of 1986; Decided on 2.2.2005.

Headnote:(1) Specific Relief Act, 1963--Ss. 13, 16 and 22--agreement to sell--not legally proved--specifically denied by defendant--suit to execute sale deed--cannot be decreed.

       Plaintiffd`respondent instituted C.S. No.15-A/86 before the Civil Judge for specific performance of contract of sale of suit land Khasra No. 25/2, area 1.667 hectare, Tahsil Damoh on the ground that original defendant Late Gayaprasad on 15.4.1980 agreed to sell the suit land for Rs. 3,000/-. Having accepted part payment of Rs. 2,100/- executed the agreement (Exhibit P-1) agreeing to execute the registered sale deed on receipt of balance sum of Rs. 900/-. Original defendant Late Gayaprasad subsequently resiled from the promise.

       The Civil Judge in C.S. No. 15-A/86 vide judgment dated 7.9.1987 held that the alleged agreement dated 15.4.1980 (Ex.P-1) is a forged one. ....Being aggrieved, plaintiffd`respondent preferred C.A. No. 1-A/88 before II ADJ, Damoh. The Court below accepting the contention that defendant Late Gayaprasad agreed to sell the suit land vide agreement dated 15.4.1980 (exhibit P-1) set aside the judgment-decree passed by Civil Judge in C.S. No. 15-A/86, instead decreed the suit for specific performance directing defendant Late Gayaprasad to execute registered sale deed of suit land in favour of plaintiffd`respondent. Being aggrieved, defendant Late Gayaprasad preferred this appeal under section 100 cpe. [Para 3

       The appeal has been heard on the following substantial questions of law :

       ‘(1) Whether the finding of the lower appellate Court that the defendant had agreed to sel1 the suit land to the plaintiff on 15.4.1980 and received Rs. 2,100/- as earnest money and Exhibit P-1 Chithi is not forged and fabricated document are perverse or at least quite unreasonable?

       (2) Whether because of plaintiff‘s failure to appeal against the grant of compensatory cost, the other findings of the trial Court could not be set aside?

       (3) Whether the entire proceedings of the trial Court and lower appel1ate Court are null and void because of non-compliance of Order 1 Rule 3B and Order 6 Rule 4-A CPC ?" [Para 2

       Held : The first appellate Court ought not to have read the statement of Jhanku to state that defendant Late Gayaprasad agreed to sell the suit land and executed agreement dated 15.4.1980 (Exhibit P-1). This witness was not produced for cross-examination and by exhibit D-9, affidavit, the witness categorical1y deposed before the Notary DW 2 R.C. Jain that in his presence, there was no talk of sale of suit land by defendant Late Gayaprasad to plaintiffd`respondent Banmali. Even in examination-in-chief, the witness has stated that he was servant of PW 4 Karan Singh, a man known for his notorious activities. As told by PW 4 Karan Singh and PW 1 Banmali, his son-in-law, the writing above the signature ‘A‘ to ‘A‘ on Exhibit P-1 was written by the witness. The attesting witness Kalu, S/o Heeralal was not examined. He also in his affidavit (Exhibit D-10) has stated that no such agreement in his presence was arrived at He was indebted to PW 4 Karan Singh and as directed, signed the document Exhibit P-1.

       The first appellate Court grossly misread the evidence so as to arrive at a conclusion that on the basis of Exhibit P-1, suit seeking‘ specific performance of contract directing defendant Late Gayaprasad to execute registered sale deed could be decreed. The findings arrived at by lower appellate Court by reappraisal of evidence are perverse and quite unreasonable. [Paras 9 & 10

       (2) Civil P.C., 1908--S. 100--second appeal--appreciation of evidence in first appeal patently erroneous there is no blanket bar in law for interference in finding of fact recorded by first appellate Court. (2000) 1 SCC 434 followed. 2001 RN 136 relied on. [Para 8

       ¼1½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963& &/kkjk 10] 16 rFkk 22&foØ; dk djkj&fof/kd :i ls lkfcr ugha&çfroknh }kjk fofufnZ"V çR;k[;ku&foØ; foys[k ds fu"iknu ds fy, okn&fMØh ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

       oknh çR;FkhZ us rglhy neksg esa 1]667 gSDVs;j {ks=Qy ds [kljk Ø-25@2 dh oknxzLr Hkwfe ds foØ; dh lafonk ds fofufnZ"V ikyu ds fy, flfoy U;k;k/kh‘k ds le{k flfoy okn Ø-15&,@86 bl vk/kkj ij lafLFkr fd;k fd ewy çfroknh fnoaxr x;kçlkn us 15-4-1980 dks #- 3]000@& ds fy, oknxzLr Hkwfe fcØh djus dk djkj fd;k FkkA #- 2]100@& dk Hkkxr% lank; Lohdkj dj mlus #- 900@& dh ‘ks"k jkf‘k çkIr gksus ij jftLVªhÑr foØ; foys[k fu"ikfnr djus dk djkj djrs gq, djkj ¼çn‘kZ ih&1½ fu"ikfnr fd;kA ewy çfroknh fnoaxr x;kçlkn ckn esa cpu ls iyV x;kA

       flfoy U;k;k/kh‘k us flfoy okn Ø-15&,@86 esa fu.kZ; fnukad 7-9-1987 }kjk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k fd vfHkdfFkr djkj fnukad 15-4-1980 ¼çn‘kZ ih&1½ dwVjfpr gSA----O;fFkr gksdj oknh çR;FkhZ us f}rh; vij ftyk U;k;k/kh‘k] neksg ds le{k flfoy vihy Ø-1&,@88 Qkby dhA fupys U;k;ky; us ;g ladFku Lohdkj djrs gq, fd çfroknh fnoaxr x;kçlkn us djkj fnukad 15-4-1980 ¼çn‘kZ ih&1½ }kjk oknxzLr Hkwfe foØ; djus dk djkj fd;k Fkk] flfoy U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk flfoy okn Ø- 15&,@86 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; fMØh vikLr dj fn,] mlds LFkku ij çfroknh&fnoaxr x;kçlkn dks oknh&çR;FkhZ ds i{k esa oknxzLr Hkwfe dk jftLVªhÑr foØ; foys[k fu"ikfnr djus dk funs‘k nsrs gq, fofufnZ"V ikyu ds fy, okn fMØh dj fn;kA O;fFkr gksdj çfroknh fnoaxr x;kçlkn us flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 100 ds v/khu ;g vihy dhA ¼iSjk 3½

       ;g vihy fof/k ds fuEufyf[kr lkjoku~ ç‘uksa ij lquh xbZ gS%

       ¼1½ D;k fupys vihy U;k;ky; ds ;g fu"d"kZ fd çfroknh us 15-4-1980 dks oknxzLr Hkwfe oknh dks fcØh djus dk djkj fd;k Fkk rFkk vfxze /ku ds :i esa #- 2]100 çkIr fd, Fks rFkk çn‘kZ ih&1 fpV~Bh dwVjfpr vkSj x<+k x;k nLrkost ugha gS] foi;ZLr ;k de ls de i;kZIr :i ls v;qfDr;qDr gSa\

       ¼2½ D;k oknh }kjk çfrdjkRed [kpZ ds çnku ds fo#) vihy ugha fd, tkus ds dkj.k fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds vU; fu"d"kZ vikLr ugha fd, tk ldrs Fks\

       ¼3½ D;k fopkj.k U;k;ky; vkSj fupys vihy U;k;ky; dh laiw.kZ çfØ;k flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk ds vkns‘k 1 fu;e 3[k vkSj vkns‘k 6 fu;e 4d ds vuuqikyu ds dkj.k vÑr vkSj ‘kwU; gSa\ ¼iSjk 2½

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vihy U;k;ky; }kjk ;g dgus ds fy, >adw ds dFku dk ikB ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk fd çfroknh fnoaxr x;kçlkn us oknxzLr Hkwfe foØ; djus dk djkj fd;k Fkk rFkk djkj fnukad 15-4-1980 ¼çn‘kZ ih&1½ fu"ikfnr fd;k FkkA ;g lk{kh çfrijh{kk ds fy, is‘k ugha fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk çn‘kZ Mh&9 ‘kiFki= }kjk bl lk{kh us uksVjh ç lk 2 vkj-lh- tSu ds le{k lqLi"V vfHklk{; fn;k gS fd mldh mifLFkfr esa çfroknh fnoaxr x;kçlkn }kjk oknh&çR;FkhZ cuekyh dks oknxzLr Hkwfe ds foØ; dh dksbZ ckr ugha gqbZ FkhA eq[; ijh{kk esa Hkh lk{kh us dgk gS fd og v lk 4 djuflag dk lsod gSa] tks viuh xfrfof/k;ksa ds fy, dq[;kr gSA tSlk v lk 4 djuflag vkSj mlds nkekn v lk 1 cuekyh }kjk crk;k x;k gS] çn‘kZ ih&1 ij gLrk{kj ds Åij ^,* ls ^,* rd dk ys[ku lk{kh }kjk fd;k x;k FkkA vuqçek.kd lk{kh dkyw] iq= ghjkyky dh ijh{kk ugha dh xbZA mlus Hkh vius ‘kiFki= ¼çn‘kZ Mh&10½ esa dgk gS fd mldh mifLFkfr esa ,slk dksbZ djkj ugha gqvk FkkA og v lk 4 djuflag dk _.kh Fkk vkSj mlus ;Fkkfunsf‘kr nLrkost çn‘kZ ih&1 ij gLrk{kj dj fn, FksA

       çFke vihy U;k;ky; us bl fu"d"kZ ij igq¡pus ds fy, çn‘kZ ih&1 ds vk/kkj ij çfroknh fnoaxr x;k çlkn dks jftLVªhÑr foØ; foys[k fu"ikfnr djus dk funs‘k nsrs gq, lafonk ds fofufnZ"V ikyu dh bZIlk ds fy, okn fMØh fd;k tk ldrk gS] lk{; dk ?kksjrj xyr ikB fd;k gSA fupys vihy U;k;ky; }kjk lk{; dk iquewZY;kadu dj fudkys x, fu"d"kZ foi;ZLr vkSj i;kZIr :i ls v;qfDr;qDr gSA ¼iSjk 9 ,oa 10½

       ¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &/kkjk 100& &f}rh; vihy&çFke vihy esa lk{; dk ewY;kadu Li"Vr% xyr&çFke vihy U;k;ky; }kjk vfHkfyf[kr rF;kRed fu"d"kZ esa gLr{ksi dk fof/k esa lkfoZd otZu ugha gSaA ¼2001½ 1 ,l lh lh 434 vuqlfjrA 2001 jk fu 136 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 8½