w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ram Chandra v/s Sirdari


Company & Directors' Information:- R K CHANDRA PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U36911WB1989PTC046753

Company & Directors' Information:- H CHANDRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U65990MH1952PTC008894

Company & Directors' Information:- H C CHANDRA & CO. PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U20231WB1957PTC023337

Company & Directors' Information:- CHANDRA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U74999KL1952PTC000280

Company & Directors' Information:- R. CHANDRA LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U99999MH1953PLC009175

    Civil First Appeal No. 33 of 1994

    Decided On, 20 December 2019

    At, High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

    For the Appellant: J.L. Purohit, Senior Advocate assisted by Rajeev Purohit, Advocate, For the Respondent: None present.



Judgment Text


1. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"The Appellant, therefore, prays that the Appeal be allowed, Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court refusing the specific performance of the Agreement may be set aside and a decree directing the specific performance of the Agreement for sale may be passed with cost throughout."

2. Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that Rawata Ram executed an agreement for sale in favour of the present appellant on 20.05.1983, regarding lands of Chak 1-2 KHD Murbba No.11/60 of Killa No.22 to 25, Murbba No.11/61, Killa No.2 to 8 and 13 to 15, totalling 14 killa. A consideration of a sum of Rs.42,000/- towards the said agreement was paid at the time of agreement itself, and possession of the land was accordingly handed over to the appellant.

3. The sale permission, in compliance of the provisions of Section 13A(A.) [Ordinances No.41 & 9, 1988 - Rajasthan Colonization Amendment Bill, 1984], was also obtained by depositing a sum of Rs.16,200/-, as compounding charges, by the present appellant on 28.07.1989. However, Rawataram meanwhile died in the year 1989 itself.

4. On 21.03.1990, a registered notice was given to the defendants for executing the sale deed in favour of the appellant, and when the same was not complied with, a suit was filed by the appellant on 09.04.1990 for specific performance of the agreement dated 20.05.1983.

5. On examination of the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, this Court takes note of the fact that while deciding issue No.1, the learned trial court has reached to a conclusion that execution of the agreement for sale is proved, but the payment of consideration of Rs.42,000/- has not been proved. The said finding of the learned trial court, to the effect that the payment of consideration of Rs.42,000/- is not proved, has resulted into the impugned judgment and decree.

6. Mr. J.L. Purohit, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rajeev Purohit appearing on behalf of the appellant has demonstrated from the copy of the agreement in question, that in the agreement itself, the executor has acknowledged the receipt of the payment of Rs.42,000/- as consideration towards the agreement in question.

The relevant portion of the aforementioned agreement reads as under:-

“TAMIL”

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Mst. Budhi Vs. Balmukand (77), (1984) RajLW 343, relevant portion of which reads as under:-

"13. As has been discussed above, the evidence adduced by the plaintiff dispels all doubts about the execution of Ex.1. It is well settled that once the execution of a document is proved, the contents will follow. The contention that the agreement set up by the plaintiff and the execution of Ex.1 do not stand proved is barren and holds no ground."

8. The matter pertains to the year 1994 and notices were duly served, and inspite thereof, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court observes that the finding arrived at by the learned trial court is based on a singular fact that the consideration of Rs.42,000/- for the agreement in question has not been proved.

10. This Court finds that the aforesaid agreement on record, in its about ninth line, as quoted hereinabove, clearly speaks that the complete amount of consideration of Rs.42,000/- has bee

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

n received. Moreover, the appellant is in continuous possession of the land in question. 11. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.02.1994 passed by the learned trial court is quashed and set aside. All pending applications stand disposed of. Decree for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 20.05.1983 be prepared accordingly.
O R