Gairaie, District Karauli (Rajasthan) v. Shree Lal son of Chhuttan

6. Maya wife of Ramswaroop daughter of Late Shri Lohray, resident of Nadi Barkhera, Karauli, District Karauli (Rajasthan).

7. Kaliya wife of Sukhram daughter of Late Shri Lohray, resident of Chhipghata, Karauli, District Karauli (Rajasthan).

8. Suraj wife of Ramsahay daughter of late Shri Lohray, resident of Chhipghata, Karauli, District Karauli (Rajasthan)

9. Santra wife of Munshi daughter of Late Lohray. resident of Gairaie, District Karauli (Rajasthan) Versus ----Appellant Shree Lal son of Chhuttan (since deceased) through his legal representatives:-

1. Hukam son of Late Shree Lal since deceased through his legal heirs:- 1/1 Kalyani widow of late Hukam, 1/2 Ramkesh son of late Hukam, 1/3 Ramniwas son of late Hukam, 1/4 Rambabu son of late Hukam, 1/5 Rambhajan son of late Hukam 1/6 Lovekush son of late Hukam, 1/7 Rajkumari daughter of late Hukam [2025:RJ-JP:21252] (2 of 8) [CSA-535/1998] 1/8 Ramdulari daughter of late Hukam, all resident of Dhaypur, Tehsil and District Karauli (Rajasthan).

2. Shribai daughter of Late Shree Lal,

3. Halki daughter of late ShreeLal, all resident of Dhaypur, Tehsil Karauli, District Karauli (Rajasthan) ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. K. Daga, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 26/05/2025 This Civil Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants- plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the judgment and decree dated 04.09.1998 passed by District & Sessions Judge, Karauli in Appeal No.14/1996, whereby appellate court partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) and set aside the judgment and decree dated

11.09.1996 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Karauli in Civil Suit No.37/82, qua specific performance of the agreement but decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants to the extent of Rs.6,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from

08.09.78 till its realization. Brief facts of the case are that agriculture land bearing Khasra No.857 situated in Village Dhaypura Majra Rampur, Tehsil Karauli, was in the Khatedari and possession of the defendant- Shree Lal. He had executed an agreement to sell dated 08.09.78 in favour of the plaintiff for sale consideration of Rs.6,000/- and [2025:RJ-JP:21252] (3 of 8) [CSA-535/1998] received the sale consideration on the same date and gave possession of the disputed land to the plaintiffs. Since then, the disputed land was in the possession of the plaintiffs. The said agreement was written by Abdul Kayyum. Lohray S/o Gulhari and Sawai were the witness of the agreement. In January, 1982, plaintiffs requested the defendants for execution of the registered sale deed but they denied and did not execute the registered sale deed. So, plaintiff gave the notice on 16.01.82 and also sent the draft sale deed. On account of denial of the defendants, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for execution of the sale deed as they were ready and willing for its execution. Alternatively, the plaintiffs also prayed to refund him Rs.6,000/- which were given by him as an advance. Defendants filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that they had not executed any agreement to sell dated 08.09.78 and had not received Rs.6,000/- as a sale consideration of the disputed land. Civil Court had no jurisdiction because land was agriculture. They also stated that plaintiffs and defendants had jointly contested litigation against Sarwan S/o Kishan Lal. Both had incurred litigation expenses. So, plaintiffs had created the forged document to harass them. The said agreement was forged one. The defendants had not handed over the possession. The alleged agreement was executed in the year 1978, whereas the present suit was filed in the year 1982 i.e. after a lapse of more than 3 years. So, the suit was time barred. So, suit filed by the plaintiffs be dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:21252] (4 of 8) [CSA-535/1998] On the basis of pleadings of parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1- D;k okni= ds [k.M nks esa crk;s vuqlkj fnukad 08-09-78 dks izfroknh Jhyky us ,d bdjkjukek oknh ds i{k esa 6 gtkj :i;s udn izkIr djds rgjhj rdehy fd;k vkSj bl bdjkjukes ds tfj, viuk [ksr [kljk uEcj 857 okds xzke /kk;iqjk oknh ds gd esa fodz; djus dk bdjkj fd;k\ 2- D;k fnukad 08-9-78 dks izfroknh us oknh dks [kljk uEcj 857 dk dCtk lkSai fn;k vkSj D;k rHkh ls eqruktk vkjkth [kljk uEcj 857 oknh ds dCts dk’r esa pyh vk jgh gS\ 3- D;k okni= ds [k.M rhu esa crk;s oknh us izfroknh ls tuojh 1982 esa fodz;i= fy[kdj jftLVªh djkus dks dgk vkSj D;k mlus izfroknh dks fnukad 16-1-82 dks fyf[kr esa ,d jftLVMZ uksfVl fn;k vkSj c;ukek dk Mªk¶V Hkh uksfVl ds lkFk Hkstk vkSj c;ukek fy[kdj jftLVªh djokus dks dgk vkSj D;k izfroknh us jftLVªh djokus ls bUdkj dj fn;k vkSj vkjkth dks nhxj txg cspus dh /kedh nh\ 4- D;k tokcnkos ds [k.M&14 ,oa 19 esa crk;s vuqlkj nkok oknh fe;kn ckgj gS\ 5- D;k tokcnkos ds [k.M&15 esa crk;s vuqlkj nkok oknh [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS\ 6- D;k tokcnkok ds [k.M&16 esa crk;s vuqlkj nkok oknh [kkfjt fd, tkus ;ksX; gS\ 7- D;k tokcnkos ds [k.M&5 ,oa 20 esa crk;s vuqlkj bl nkos dh lquokbZ dk vf/kdkj nhokuh vnkyr dks ugha gS\ 8- D;k tokcnkos ds [k.M&8 esa crk;s vuqlkj oknh us de dksVZ Qhl vnk dh gS\ 9- vuqrks"k\ To prove its case, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW1- Lohray S/o Madan, PW2-Sawai, PW3-Lohray S/o Gulhari, PW4- Mangal, PW5-Abdul Gaffar. Defendant got himself examined as DW-1-Shree Lal. [2025:RJ-JP:21252] (5 of 8) [CSA-535/1998] After hearing the parties, the trial Court vide judgment dated 11.09.96, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs and also ordered the defendants to execute the sale deed of the land situated in Khasra No.857 Village Dhaypura Majra Rampur, Tehsil Karauli, District Sawaimadhopur in favour of the plaintiffs within two months from the date of judgment. Defendants assailed the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court by way of appeal. The appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 04.09.98 partly allowed the appeal filed by the defendant and set aside the judgment and decree dated 11.09.96 qua specific performance of the agreement but decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants for refund of Rs.6,000/- and also held entitled him to get interest @ 12% per annum from 08.09.78 till realization. Plaintiffs challenged the judgment and decree dated

04.09.1998 passed by the appellate court qua setting aside the specific performance of the agreement by way of second appeal. This Court on 02.11.1998 admitted the present appeal on the following question of law:- “Whether a court has a discretion to refuse a specific performance of the contract when the contract is held to be proved and in pursuance thereof, the possession of the immovable property has been handed over to the plaintiff? Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs by way of evidence proved the so-called agreement to sell dated

08.9.78. They had also proved the so-called agreement by adducing the evidence of the witnesses. Defendants had denied the execution of so-called agreement in their cross-examination. They had admitted the signature on the so-called agreement. [2025:RJ-JP:21252] (6 of 8) [CSA-535/1998] Appellate court also held that agreement to sell was proved but instead of passing the decree for specific performance of contract, the appellate court had committed an error in granting the decree for refund of consideration amount with interest. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that possession was handed over to the plaintiffs at the time of the execution of the agreement. So, judgment and decree dated

04.09.1998 passed by the appellate court deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that appellate court wrongly came to the conclusion that the said agreement was written on account of litigation contested by plaintiff as well as defendant against Sarwan in which litigation expenses was incurred by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs also submits that agreement (Ex.1) did not mention the litigation expenses against Sarwan. So, judgment and decree dated 04.09.1998 passed by the appellate court be set aside and decree passed by the trial court be restored. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Syed Dastagir Vs. T. R. Gopalakrishna Setty reported in (1999) 6 SCC 337 and (2) P. Ramasubbamma Vs. V. Vijaylakshmi & Ors. reported in (2022) 7 SCC 384. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs and submits that the appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that by way of the agreement (Ex.1), disputed land was not sold. [2025:RJ-JP:21252] (7 of 8) [CSA-535/1998] The said agreement was written on account of litigation expenses incurred in the case contested against Sarwan jointly by plaintiff and defendant. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the plaintiffs in plaint sought the alternate relief regarding refund of consideration amount given by him. So, it is a discretion of the appellate court to grant only consideration money instead of passing the decree for specific performance of contract. So, present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Tejram Vs. Patirambhau reported in AIR 1997 SC 2702; (2) Vinayakappa Suryabhanappa Dahenkar Vs. Dulichand Hariram Muraka in Second Appeal No.73/1974 decided on 09.08.1985; (3) Pappammal @ T. Pappa Vs. P. Ramasamy in S. A. No.943/2011 and MP No.1/2011 decided on 29.03.2012; (4) Gian Chand and Brothers & Anr. Vs. Rattan Lal @ Rattan Singh reported in (2013) 2 SCC 606 and (5) Ganesh Shet Vs Dr. C. S. G.K. Setty & Ors. reported in 1998 SAR (Civil) 544. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the plaintiffs as well as learned counsel for the defendants. As per the evidence of the plaintiffs, defendants had executed the agreement dated 08.09.78 to sell the disputed land to the plaintiffs. A perusal of the agreement (Ex.1) reveals that the said land was sold by the defendant on account of marriage of his daughter but during the evidence, defendant adduced the evidence that plaintiff and defendant had contested litigation [2025:RJ-JP:21252] (8 of 8) [CSA-535/1998] against Sarwan and expenses were incurred by them jointly. The said agreement was written. Plaintiff in his cross-examination admitted the fact of litigation against Sarwan which was contested by both of them. So, in my considered opinion, the appellate court rightly came to the conclusion that by way of said agreement, disputed land was not sold. The agreement was written for recovery of the amount incurred in the case contested against Sarwan by the plaintiff and defendant jointly. Plaintiff also sought the alternate relief regarding refund of consideration money given by him. So, in my considered opinion, the appellate court had not committed any error in exercising the discretion for refund of money. So, substantial question of law framed by this Court is not proved. So, present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed. Jatin /12 (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J