The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RSA No. 79 of 2012 An appeal under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure. --------------- Mithila Bhoi ...… Appellant -Versus- Sovagini Panigrahi Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- _______________________________________________________ ..… Respondent For Appellant : M/s. T.R. Meher, B.K. Baral N. Behera,Advocates For Respondent : M/s. A.S. Paul, D. Sahoo, M.K. Dash & P. Nanda, (For Intervenor) M/s. D.P.Mohanty, R.K. Nayak T.K. Mohanty, P.K. Swain, M. Das, R. Mohanty & A. Mishra, Advocates _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. JUDGMENT 11.03.2025 This
Legal Reasoning
is a defendant’s appeal against a confirming judgment. The judgment passed on Page 1 of 9 27.01.2012 followed by decree by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepur in RFA No. 4 of 2006 is impugned whereby, the judgment passed on 19.11.2005 followed by decree by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepur in Title Suit No. 61 of 2002 was confirmed. 2, For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of contract and in the alternative, for a direction to the defendant to refund sum of Rs. 22,500/- with interest. 4. The plaintiff’s case, briefly stated, is that the defendant is the recorded tenant of the suit land and is in possession thereof. She wanted to sell the suit land in favour of the plaintiff to meet her legal necessities. Accordingly, she entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell the suit land for consideration of Rs.40,000/-, out of which, she received an advance of Rs.10,000/-. The registered deed of agreement was executed on 22.11.2000, which was said to have been scribed as per instruction of the defendant. The plaintiff Page 2 of 9 subsequently paid different amounts on different dates, in all amounting to Rs.12,500/-. Thus, the total part payment accepted by the defendant was Rs.22,500/-. It is the further case of the plaintiff that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract by paying the balance consideration amount and also offered her readiness but the defendant avoided to execute the sale deed in respect of the land. The plaintiff served a legal notice on 26.07.2002 but the same evoked no response. Hence, the suit. 5. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement, inter alia, challenging its maintainability. Additionally, it was stated that she had not entered into any agreement for sale with the plaintiff and also denied having received any amount towards part consideration. 6. Basing on the rival pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues for determination:- “(1) Whether the suit is maintainable? (2) Whether there is cause of action to bring the suit? Page 3 of 9 (3) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? (4) Whether the defendant has entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to sell away the suit land for a consideration of Rs.40,000/-? (5) Whether the defendant has received part consideration of Rs.10,000/- on 22.11.2000 and Rs.12,500/- on 06.04.2001, 12.07.2001 and 09.10.2001 the plaintiff? respectively from (6) Whether the defendant is liable to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving balance consideration amount of Rs17,500/- from her? (7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get refund of Rs.22,500/- with interest thereof from the defendant, in case the relief of specific performance of contract is not granted? (8) What other relief(s) the plaintiff is entitled to?” 7. Taking up issue Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 for consideration at the outset, the trial court, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence on record found that the registered agreement for sale had been executed by the defendant after receipt of part consideration amount. Moreover there is a presumption attached to the document as per Section 16 of the Registration Act. The defendant’s plea that she had no capacity to enter into the contract being an illiterate lady was not accepted. Thus, Page 4 of 9 basing on the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court was inclined to hold that the defendant entered into the agreement and executed the same and had also received a sum of Rs.22,500/-. The trial Court then considered whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and found from the evidence that she was so ready and willing. The trial court therefore did not find any reason to direct the defendant to refund the consideration amount received by her. On such findings the suit was decreed and the defendant was directed to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the balance consideration amount within one month. 8. The defendant carried the matter in appeal to the District Court. Though the learned Additional District Judge did not specifically frame points for determination as required under Order XLI Rule 31 of CPC yet, took note of the rival contentions raised and the issues involved. The 1st Appellate Court took note of the fact that the defendant in her written statement had taken only the ground that the agreement for sale had been created for Page 5 of 9 the purpose of this case but could not prove the same to satisfaction by adducing rebuttal evidence. It was further found that the evidence of the plaintiff was quite clear, consistent, convincing, credible and above reproach. As such, it was held that she was entitled to the decree for specific performance. The appeal was thus, dismissed. 9. Being further aggrieved, the defendant has filed this second appeal which has been admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the courts below have rightly held the respondent to have discharged the burden of proof in duly proving the agreement for sale (Ext.1) said to have been executed by the appellant being alive to and in consonance with the settled law and also whether the appreciation of evidence in that regard is perverse being oblivious of the suspicious surrounding features emanating from evidence and admitted facts.” 10.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Sri T.K. Meher, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and Sri D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent. 11. Sri Meher would argue that both the courts below have not taken note of the fact that the contract in question is void for uncertainty. Secondly, the so called Page 6 of 9 execution of the contract was attended by several suspicious circumstances. 12. Per contra, Sri Mohanty would submit that both the courts below concurrently found that the contract in question was duly executed by the defendant and also registered in accordance with law. Secondly, the plea of suspicious circumstances raised has been answered adequately by the trial court and confirmed by the 1st Appellate Court. There is nothing to show as to how such finding is wrong. 13. Having perused the impugned judgments and on careful consideration of the rival contentions putforth, this Court finds that the plaintiff proved the agreement for sale as Exhibit-1 executed between her and the defendant for sale of the suit land. Further, the fact of receipt of Rs.22,500/- was also proved. As regards the question of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, both the courts below have concurrently found the plaintiff to be ready to pay the balance consideration amount to the defendant. This is essentially a finding of fact. It has not been demonstrated as to how such finding is wrong being either Page 7 of 9 perverse, against the weight of evidence on record or such that no prudent person would arrive at. 14. As regards the plea of suspicious circumstances attending the execution of the contract, it has been urged that the defendant being an illiterate lady having no knowledge of law, the contract has to be viewed with suspicion. While it is true that an instrument executed by an illiterate lady can be viewed with suspicion under certain circumstances, but the evidence adduced in the present case, suggests otherwise. To amplify, the trial court found from the evidence on record that the defendant, despite claiming to be an illiterate lady, had endorsed her signature on the contract. Further, from the oral evidence adduced by the parties, it was also established that the defendant was quite capable of entering into contract. As already stated, this Court has found nothing so as to be persuaded to disturb the findings of fact of both courts below. This Court therefore, answers the substantial question of law framed to the effect that both the courts below must be held to have rightly held the respondent (plaintiff) to have discharged Page 8 of 9 the burden of proof by proving the contract (Exhibit-1) in accordance with law and there is nothing to suggest that such finding is perverse. As already stated, this Court is not impressed with the plea of suspicious circumstances raised by the defendant. 15. It has also not been shown as to how the terms of the contract are void for uncertainty. Apart from the fact that such a plea was never raised before the Courts below, it has not been shown as what ambiguity is present in the recitals of the contract so as to label it as uncertain. 16. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact rendered by both the courts below. Resultantly, the appeal is held to be devoid of merit and is therefore
Decision
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending Interlocutory Applications also stand disposed of. Signature Not Verified B.C. Tudu, Sr. Steno Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 14-Mar-2025 12:44:36 ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Page 9 of 9