JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiffs under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 15.5.2015 passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge to the Court of first Additional District Judge, Bhopal in Civil Suit No.237-A/2011.

2. The brief facts of the case, are that the plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of contract i.e. joint venture agreement dated 20.4.2010 and for permanent injunction over the suit property bearing khasra numbers 50/2 and 151 admeasuring 6.93 acres situated at village- Khajuri Kala Piplani, Bhopal alleging that the respondent Nanhe Khan executed a registered agreement of contract of joint venture after taking a part of consideration. The total consideration was Rs.6.92 Crores. The plaintiffs/appellants have paid a total sum of Rs.3,93,00,000/- to the respondent through cheques which have been encashed by him.

3. It is also pleaded that before filing of the suit, the defendant – Nanhe Khan filed a suit bearing R.C.S.No.161-A/2011 for declaration the disputed joint venture agreement dated 29.4.2010 as null and void and not binding on him on the ground that the said agreement was executed by playing fraud and misrepresentation. Nanhe Khan in the aforesaid civil suit filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 for grant of temporary injunction which was dismissed vide order dated 30.3.2011. Thereafter, the aforesaid suit itself was withdrawn by Nanhe Khan.

4. In the present suit, the defendant filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that the suit land was already bequeathed among his two sons, six daughters and himself in nine parts by an oral hiba (oral gift). It is further contended that the defendant had executed the agreement for sale of land which was of his own share i.e. 0.77 acre for a consideration of Rs.4 Crores and received an amount of Rs.3,93,00,000/- towards the same. Apart from that, no other property is agreed by him to sell the plaintiffs/ appellant.

5. The trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.5.2015 dismissed the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs.

6. The appellants have challenged the findings recorded by the trial Court on the grounds that every partnership firm is not required to be registered under section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act and only registration of partnership firm is condition precedent for presentation of suit and all these formalities have been complied with. It is alleged that the trial Court committed an error of law by holding that the agreement/contract in question was not legally proved because it is the defendant case that he executed the deed of joint venture therefore, execution of the contract is not disputed and it is to be presumed that registered document is properly executed under sections 34, 60 and 59 of the Indian Registration Act. It is further contended that the trial Court itself rejected the plea of oral Hiba (oral gift) of the defendant. The defendant in paragraph 4 of the written statement admitted the receiving of the amount from the plaintiffs/appellants. The trial Court observed that the suit property was ancestral property as it was received by the defendant from his maternal uncle on the other hand, the trial Court rejected the plea of the defendant with regard to oral gift and the name of the defendant only is found mention in the revenue records, hence, the defendant is the sole owner of the property and there is no defect of non-joinder of necessary parties. The respondent received a huge amount as part of consideration but is not inclined to execute registered sale deed in favour of the appellants. With the aforesaid averments, it is prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and a decree for specific performance of contract in question be passed in favour of the appellants.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The disputed joint venture agreement (Exhibit P-1) is