V.M. Jain, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order dated 24.12.1999 passed by the District Judge, dismissing the application dated 20.10.1999 filed by the plaintiffs -appellants under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC.
(2.) THE facts which are relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that the plaintiffs Naresh Chandra etc. had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 30.1.1995 and for delivery of vacant possession and also declaration against defendants Mahavir Singh etc. In the said suit, it was alleged by the plaintiffs that defendant No. 1 Mahavir Singh was the absolute owner of the land measuring 102 Kanals and 14 marlas detailed in the plaint and that he entered into a written agreement to sell dated 30.1.1995 with plaintiff No. 1 Naresh Chandra for the sale of a part of the suit land measuring 5 acres detailed in the plaint @ Rs. 99 lacs per acre and the total consideration was Rs. 4,95,,00,000/ -. It was alleged that at the time of said agreement, a sum of Rs. 11.00 lacs was paid as advance money on 30.1.1995 and a receipt was duly executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of plaintiff No. 1 and the balance consideration of Rs. 4,84,00,000/ - (inadvertently written in words in the said agreement as Rupees Four crores eighty four thousand only) was to be received by the vendor from the vendee at the time of registration of the sale deed. It was alleged that the actual physical vacant possession of the suit land was to be delivered by the vendor to the vendee at the time of registration of the sale deed. It was alleged that the vendor was to obtain various sanctions/permissions before executing sale deed in favour of vendee. It was further alleged that as per the agreement, the vendor was to execute the sale deed in favour of the vendee within a period of four months from the said date. It was alleged in the suit that in pursuance of the said agreement to sell dated 30.1.1995, defendant had submitted on 7.8.1995 application before the Income Tax Department for obtaining necessary permission/clearance for the sale of the said land and the said application was signed by plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 and copy of the agreement to sell dated 30.1.1995 alongwith other documents was attached alongwith the said application and the necessary permission was granted by the Income Tax department vide letter dated 26.5.1995 and on receipt of the said letter, plaintiff No. 1 wrote letter dated 29.5.1995 to defendant No. 1 informing about the grant of necessary approval and requesting defendant No. 1 to take immediate steps for obtaining other necessary permission etc. for the purpose of executing sale deed. It was alleged that thereupon defendant No. 1 applied to the concerned authorities for obtaining necessary certificate etc. and also attached copy of the agreement and defendant No. 1 had also sworn an affidavit dated 27.6.1995 giving the details of 5 acres of land agreed to be sold. It was alleged that thereafter necessary permission was granted vide endorsement dated 19.7.1995. It was alleged that in pursuance of the said agreement to sell dated 30.1.1995, plaintiff No. 1 had been negotiating for an agreement with plaintiff No. 2, a multinational company, for rendering advisory services and spent huge expenses in consequence of the agreement to sell. Plaintiff No. 1 at the request of defendant No. 1 had also purchased stamp papers in favour of plaintiff No. 2, being the nominee of plaintiff No. 1, of the value of Rs. 61,87,500/ - and also got the sale deed ready thereon in favour of plaintiff No. 2 for its execution by defendant No. 1 but inspite of all this, defendant No. 1 failed to execute the sale deed and on 15.3.1996, defendant No. l completely refused to perform his part of the contract even though plaintiff No. 1 had always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and was still willing to perform his part of contract and had even got stamp papers worth Rs. 61,87,500/purchased and had also got sale deed prepared thereon. It was further alleged that plaintiffs were ready to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 4,84,00,000/ - by way of demand draft in the court as and when directed to do so. However, defendant No. 1 failed to execute the sale deed in terms of the said agreement. Initially, the suit was filed only against defendant No. 1, but on coming to know from the written statement filed by defendant No. 1 that he had transferred the suit land in favour of his sons (defendants 2 and 3) by way of civil court decree dated 14.9.1995, the plaintiffs amended the suit and impleaded defendants 2 and 3 in the said suit and it was alleged that the decree dated 14.9.1995 passed in civil suit No. 727 of 1995 titled as Rajinder Kumar and Ors. v. Mahavir Singh was illegal and void and was liable to be set aside and was not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs. The suit filed by the plaintiffs was contested by defendants. In the written statement filed by defendant No. 1, to the amended plaint, it was alleged that the suit of the plaintiffs was based on the false and forged documents. It was alleged that defendant No. 1 had agreed to sell lesser area to plaintiff @ Rs. 99.00 lacs per acre, giving the details of the area agreed to be sold, but the plaintiff No. 1 made material additions in the agreement to sell which had completely changed the nature and contents of the said document. A comparison with the photostat copy of the agreement to sell which was supplied by plaintiff 1 to defendant 1 with the original agreement to sell would show that unauthorised additions had been made. It was alleged that unauthorised additions/alterations had been made by plaintiffs without knowledge and consent of defendant No. 1 and since the suit was based on false and forged documents, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the discretionary relief of specific performance of the agreement to sell and it was alleged that while making additions/alterations the plaintiffs had included certain killa numbers while defendant No. 1 at no point of time had agreed to sell and even otherwise the said land was adjacent to Gurgaon -Mehrauli road and if that land is sold to plaintiffs then the remaining land of defendant No. 1 would have no access from any side. It was alleged that plaintiff No. 1 had got signatures of defendant No. 1 on several blank forms for the purpose of obtaining necessary permission from various government departments and he had filled in the blank forms according to his own convenience. It was further alleged that the suit land was the joint Hindu family property and defendant No. l was not the absolute owner of the same and the other members of the joint Hindu family namely defendants 2 and 3 on the basis of their legal right in the property in dispute had obtained the decree for declaration in their favour that they were owners in possession of the suit land. It was alleged that the suit for specific performance was not maintainable and even otherwise plaintiff No. 1 had failed to perform his part of agreement within the specified period. It was alleged that at the time of signing the agreement to sell by defendant No. 1 there were certain spaces which were left blank which were filled by plaintiff No. 1 in his own handwriting according to his own convenience. It was alleged that defendant No. 1 had not agreed to sell 5 acres of land and thus the sale consideration of Rs. 4,95,00,000/ - was not agreed to be paid as price of the land. It was, however, admitted that Rs. 11 -00 lacs were received as earnest money. It was alleged that plaintiff No. 1 had obtained signatures of defendant No. 1 on various forms for obtaining necessary clearance certificates etc. from the Income Tax Department. Plaintiff No. 1 got the blank forms typed as per his own convenience. It was denied that defendant No. 1 had sworn any affidavit dated 27.6.1995 giving details of the 5 acres of land. It was further alleged that the judgment and decree dated 14.9.1995 were legal and valid. Defendants 2 and 3 in their written statement also pleaded that the judgment and decree dated 14.9.1995 in their favour were legal and valid.
(3.) THE plaintiffs filed replication to the written statements filed by the defendants. On the pleading of the parties, the learned trial court framed various issues and additional issues. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. During the pendency of the suit, the handwriting and finger print expert on behalf of the defendants had inspected the original documents and had also taken photographs and had submitted his report. Similarly, the finger print expert appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs had also inspected the record and had taken photographs and had submitted his report. The original document i.e. agreement in question was also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban and the said Laboratory had also submitted its report. After the conclusion of the evidence and after hearing both sides, the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 24.4.1999 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree of the trial court, plaintiffs filed appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was admitted to a regular hearing.;