Janardan Sahai, J. - (1.) -Bans Bahadur Singh and Vikrama Singh, respondents in this appeal filed a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale dated 20.2.1985 executed by the first defendant, the appellant Krishna Gopal Pandey. Alternatively, refund of advance money together with interest was also sought.
(2.) BEFORE the contract of sale dated 20.2.1985, the subject matter of this appeal, Krishna Gopal Pandey had executed a contract of sale dated 26.11.1984 in respect of a different plot in favour of the plaintiffs. It is not disputed that the second defendant Smt. Damyanti Devi is the wife of the first defendant Krishna Gopal Pandey who had executed a sale deed dated 27.11.1984 in her favour in respect of the land which was the subject-matter of the contracts of sale dated 26.11.1984 and 20.2.1985. In this suit, the first defendant Krishna Gopal Pandey admitted his signatures on the agreement to sell and also admitted having received a sum of Rs. 40,000 from the plaintiff but his case was that the document dated 20.2.1985 was obtained from him by practising fraud in that he had merely taken a loan from the plaintiff and intended to execute a mortgage deed in security but the plaintiff fraudulently obtained his signatures on the agreement to sell. The case of the second defendant who as stated above is none other than the wife of the first defendant was that a sum of Rs. one lac was due to her from her husband as she had advanced certain amounts to him which she had received from her parents and that the sale deed dated 27.11.1984 was executed by him in her favour in consideration of that loan. Both the courts below have repelled the case of fraud set up by Defendant No. 1 and it has been held that the sale deed in favour of the second defendant was a sham transaction and was void. The courts below have decred the suit for specific performance.
(3.) I have heard Shri V. K. S. Chaudhary, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Shri Ravi Kiran Jain, learned senior counsel for the respondents. The contract of sale dated 20.2.1985 bears the signatures of the first defendant (hereinafter referred to as the 'vendor') but it does not bear the signature of the plaintiffs in whose favour it was executed. It was contended by Sri V. K. S. Chaudhary that under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act as amended in Uttar Pradesh, a contract of sale must be registered-a requirement which implies that it must be in writing and when it is stipulated that the contract is to be in writing, the entire contract which is a bilateral transaction consisting of incidents of proposal and acceptance must be in writing and that a unilateral deed such as the one executed in the present case does not meet the requirement of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.;