Decided on September 04,1952

RAMAGYA KUER Respondents


Narayan, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by the defendants, and it arises out of a suit for specific performance of contract. The case put forward by the plaintiff was that defendant 1 entered into a contract with him on 14-5-1944 for settling 1 Bigha 14 dhurs of bakasht land on the nazrana of Rs. 1500 and at the annual rental of 7 annas. Rs. 450 was paid by the plaintiff as the earnest money, and it was agreed that the patta would be executed and registered on 23-5-1944. It was, however, alleged that in spite of demands the patta was not executed and that the plaintiff later came to know that defendant 2 had taken settlement of 1 katha 7 dhurs of land out of the said 1 bigha 14 dhurs in the name of his minor son, defendant 3, on 2-6-1944. The plaintiff therefore prayed for a decree for specific performance of contract on payment by him of the amount of Rs. 1050 which was the balance of the nazrana money. The defendants contested the suit and contended that there had been no contract with the plaintiff for the settlement of any land and that the document put forward by the plaintiff for proving the alleged contract was a fabricated document.
(2.) The Courts below have accepted the case of the plaintiff that there was a contract entered into between him and defendant 1 for the execution of a mokarrari patta for a consideration of Rs. 1300. The document, Ex. 1, which is called by the name of Mahadanama has been held to be a genuine document and the Courts below have further found that defendant 2, who subsequently took settlement of plot No. 1388, with an area of 1 katha 7 dhurs, which is one of the plots which, under the contract, had to be settled with the plaintiff, took the settlement with full knowledge of the contract that had been entered into between defendant 1 and the plaintiff.
(3.) The defendants have consequently come up in second appeal, and Mr. Ganesh Sharma appearing on their behalf has urged the contentions (1) that the Mahadanama propounded by the plaintiff is not a valid document and should have been ignored by the Courts below and (2) that the Courts below should have drawn inference adverse to the plaintiff because the scribe was not examined.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.