- (1.) THE suit giving rise (to this appeal was for specific perform ance of a contract of sale of certain Bhumidhari plots. The plaintiffs-res pondents alleged that on 15-6-1964 the first defendant-appellant, Guniram, exe cuted an agreement to sell his half share 5h certain Bhumidhari plots and in a house for a consideration of Rs. 4000/- on receiving an earnest of Rs. 1500/- from the plaintiffs, but Guniram seemed to have changed his mind and executed a sale-deed on 10-2-1965 of the Bhumidhari plots in favour of the second defendant-respondent. Akhila Prasad. On 30-4-1965 the plaintiffs instituted the suit for spe cific performance of the contract. Dur ing the pendency of the suit the first defendant Guniram executed another sale-deed on 20-9-1965 in favour of the third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants-respondents in respect of the house and they were also impleaded as defendants to the suit. It was also alleged by the plaintiffs that Rampati and Sheopati, who were the nephews of Guniram had al ready sold their one-half share in the properties to the plaintiffs by a sale-deed dated 30-9-1963 and the plaintiffs being desirous of acquiring full rights in the properties negotiated with Guniram for the sale of his half share and sometime in January 1964 Guniram agreed but as the plaintiffs had not sufficient funds with them, applied for loan from the Land Mortgage Bank and it was settled between the parties that a sale-deed would be executed by March, 1965. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that in May, 1964 the Bank agreed to advance the loan to them and paid the first install ment of Rs. 1500/-, armed with which they approached Guniram on 15th June, paid the said sum as earnest, on accept ing which Guniram executed the agree ment to sell. The balance, of Rs. 2500/-was left to be paid when the sale-deed was executed.
(2.) THE suit was contested by all the defendants, inter alia, it was pleaded by the defendants in their written state ment that Guniram had not executed any agreement to sell, his signatures having been obtained under duress on blank sheets which subsequently appears to have been converted into an agreement to sell his half share in the properties. Thus the defence was a denial of the existence of any agreement to sell. The plaintiff did not file the document evidencing the said agreement along with the plaint. On 17-9- 1965 the defendants filed their written statement and on that date the issues were struck. The plaintiffs also filed an application on the same date asking the permission of the court for filing certain documents and in the list appended to the application the agreement alleged to have been exe cuted by Guniram on 15-6-1964 was in cluded. The court granted the application and permitted the documents to be filed by 17-9-1965 on which date the plaintiffs filed the document dated 15-6-1964 alleg ed to have been executed by Guniram and prayed that the same be kept in a sealed envelope. This document was marked as paper No. 30/A.l and kept on record. Whether there was any agree ment between the plaintiffs and defend ant No. 1 for the sale of the property In suit was the main issue for determi nation in the suit. The parties led evi dence in support of their respective cases. Raghoram, one of the plaintiffs, examined himself as a witness. Siaram the scribe of the document and Harbans, a marginal witness, were also examined. On behalf of the defendant evi dence was led in support of his case that on 26-4-1965 he was ambushed by the plaintiffs, threatened and coerced physi cally into appending his signatures on three blank sheets. A copy of the report lodged at the Police Station of the inci dent was also produced. Though in the written statement of the defendants it was said that the document dated 15-6-1964 was not stamped and registered, it does not appear from the record that any objec tion was raised before taking of the evi dence that it was inadmissible in evi dence being unstamped.
(3.) THE learned Munslf believed the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendants and held that Guniram had not executed any agreement. The learn ed Munsif further rejected the document, Paper No, 30/A.l, as he found it to be unstamped. The result was that the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed.;