SUSHILA DEVI Vs. DEEWAN CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the District Judge, Mainpuri in Civil Revision No. 77 of 2013. The revision has been allowed and the order passed by the trial court dated 26.09.2013 allowing application 79-ka-1 of defendant No.1 for amending the written statement has been set aside.

(2.) The first respondent instituted a suit bearing No. 49 of 2005 against the petitioner for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 02.12.2003. According to the plaint assertions, the petitioner agreed to sell the suit property and accordingly entered into an agreement to sell dated 02.12.2003 whereunder the total sale consideration to be paid was Rs. 2,00,000/- out of which Rs. 95,000/- was paid as earnest money. It was also the case of the plaintiff that after execution of the agreement, a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner against receipt dated 13.02.2004. Thus, according to the plaintiff, only Rs. 5,000/- remained unpaid. It seems that soon after gaining knowledge of the suit, the petitioner executed a sale deed dated 31.05.2005 of the suit property in favour of Shiv Pratap Singh, the second respondent. The petitioner filed written statement in the suit on 25.07.2005 wherein she took a stand that the alleged agreement is a sham document. No money was paid to her under the said agreement. There was also no agreement for sale of the property but the plaintiff by misrepresenting that the defendant has to be witness in some matter obtained her signature and thumb impressions. Thus, the very execution of the agreement for sale was denied. The petitioner filed an additional written statement dated 23.04.2007 in which she reiterated the stand taken in the original written statement that in fact there was no agreement as alleged.

(3.) The second respondent who purchased the property from the petitioner during pendency of the suit was impleaded as defendant No.2. He filed his written statement on 16.05.2007 reiterating the stand taken by the petitioner in her written statement that her signatures were obtained by misrepresentation and in fact there was no agreement for sale between the parties nor any money was paid to her under the said agreement.