- (1.) M. Katju, J. The writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 2-8-1991, Annexure 10 to the writ petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri Swami Dayal for the petitioner and Sri B. D. Mandhyan for the respondent. The facts of the case are that one Sri Abdul Rashid Khan was the owner of the following properties: (i) Mohalla Kota-House No. 2, Khurja, Bulandshahr. (ii) Mohalla Salmahakan-House No. 99, Khurja Bulandshahr (iii) Crown Engineering works-land and building khurja Bulandshahr. Abdul Rashid Khan had four sons including the petitioner and respondent No. 2. On his death his properties devolved in his four sons. It is alleged in paragraph 4 of the petition that on 31-5-1974, an agree ment in writing was executed between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 by which it was agreed that the respondent No. 2 would transfer his one fourth share both in house No. 2 as well as in house No. 99 for a consideration of Rs. 13. 000a and Rs. 1100/-respectively. It was further agreed that the petitioner would transfer his share in the land and building of Crown Engineer ing works in favour of respondent No. 2 for a consideration of Rs, 42,210/- True copy of the said agreement is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Subsequently, it is alleged that there was a family partition on 31-3-1975 between the four sons of Abdul Rashid Khan and by virtue of this partition it is alleged that the petitioner because the owner of 3/4th share in house No. 2. He also came to acquire 3/4 th share in house No. 99. True copy of the partition deed is Annexure-2 to the petition. In Crown Engineering Works the petitioner and his brother were partners and this firm was dissolved and the petitioner was given one bigha land besides the construction existing thereon and it was this property which was agreed to be trans ferred to respondent No. 2 under the agree ment dated 31-5-1974 for a consideration of Rs. 42,270.
(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY, on 17-10-1975, another agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. Under this agreement, the terms of the ear lier agreement dated 31-5-1974 were radi cally changed. It was agreed in this sub sequent agreement dated 17-10-1975 that the respondent No. 2 would transfer his l/4th share in house No. 2 for a considera tion of Rs. 13. 000/- but it was also provided that the petitioner was to sell his 3/4 share in house No. 99 for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/ -. As regards the share of the petitioner in Crown Engineering Works, It was provided that the petitioner would transfer his share, i. e one bigha land and the construction thereon for a consideration of Rs. 42,000/- in favour of respondent No. 2 True copy of the agreement dated 17. 10. 1975 is Annexure-3 to the petition. It is alleged in paragraph 8 of the petition that this agreement dated 17-10-1975 was ob tained by the respondent No. 2 by undue influence and duress upon the petitioner. In paragraph 9 of the petition, it is alleged that since the respondent No. 2 refused to perform the terms of the agree ment dated 31-5-1974, the petitioner was compelled to file suit No. 252 of 1976 for specific performance of the agreement. True copy of the plaint of that suit is Annexure-4 to the petition. In paragraph 10 of the peti tion, it is mentioned that the petitioner served a notice dated 20-10-1975 to the respondent No. 2 repudiating the agree ment dated 17-10-1975. In paragraph 11 of the petition, it is alleged that as a counter blast to the petitioner's, suit, the respondent No. 2 also filed a suit for specific perfor mance of the agreement dated 17-10-1975 being suit No. 103 of 1979. In this suit the respondent No. 2 claimed a decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 17-10-1975.;