Permod Kohli, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of R.S.A. Nos. 3403 to 3405 of 2003 which arise out of judgments and decrees dated 07.01.2000 and 03.12.2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Gurgaon and the District Judge, Gurgaon. respectively.
(2.) PLAINTIFF /appellant herein has suffered impugned judgments and decrees on account of its own lapse of not producing any evidence in the cases. Plaintiff filed three suits for possession by specific performance in the trial Court. Civil Suit No. 175 of 1995 was instituted in respect to land measuring 16 kanals. Suit No. 174 of 1995 was for land measuring 14 kanals and suit No. 173 of 1995 was for land measuring 15 kanals. It is alleged that defendant No. 1 executed three agreements to sell, all dated 01.04.1994. In each case the sale considerations were fixed at Rs. 7,20,000/ -. An amount of Rs. 72.000' -was paid as advance against each transaction against proper receipts. Suit for possession by specific performance was filed in the trial court on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 01.04.1994. It has been alleged in the plaints filed in all the suits that defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the plots of land detailed in the plaints for a consideration of Rs. 7,20,000/ - in each case and executed agreements to sell, all dated 01.04.1994. An amount of Rs. 72,000/ - was paid as advance money in each case against a proper receipt. Defendant No. 2 is the witness to all the agreements. Balance sale consideration was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deeds. Defendants No. I was required to obtain necessary permission and clearance from Income Tax Authority and other authorities required for transfer of the land. It is further stated in the plaints that defendant No. 1 was required to intimate plaintiff by registered post regarding grant of necessary permission and plaintiff would get the sale deeds executed within one month or by 3rd of April, 1994 which ever be later. Possession of the plots of land was required to be handed over to the plaintiff at the time of execution and registration of the sale deeds. It is alleged that representative of the plaintiff requested to obtain requisite clearance and inform him through registered post. It is further stated that on 14.07.1995. plaintiff advanced another amount of Rs. 4.00 lacs against each agreement on latter's request against proper receipts but the defendant has not informed the plaintiff regarding necessary clearance and permission. It is further stated that a legal notice was also served upon defendant No. 1, but without any response. Plaintiff has further stated that he is still ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration. On being summoned, defendants filed the written statement denying the execution of the agreements as also the receipts for the amounts of earnest money of Rs. 72.000/ - and Rs. 4.00 lacs in each case, respectively. They even denied the existence of the agreements and alleged that the same are result of fraud, manipulation and are forged and fabricated. It was pleaded that the agreements appear to have been forged on the basis of blank papers misused by one Rama Nand, Advocate who had purchased the adjacent land from the defendants in the year 1960 and has constructed a house thereon. Said Rama Nand is said to have developed good neighborly relations with the defendants and had misused the fiduciary relation by obtaining thumb impressions and signatures of defendant No. I on blank papers. The agreements are also said to be without consideration as the defendant never received the advanced amount or agreed to sell the land. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed following issues: - 1) Whether the defendant No. 1 agreed to sell the suit land vide agreement dated 01.04.1994 in favour of plaintiff? OPP 2) Whether decree dated 10.10.1994 regarding suit land suffered by defendant No. l in favour of defendants No. 2 to 15 is illegal, null and void? OPP 3) Whether the defendant failed to perform his part of contract? OPP 4) Whether the plaintiff is still ready and willing to perform his part of contract? OPP 5) Whether the suit land is ancestral joint Hindu Family property of defendants? OPP 6) Whether the suit is false and frivolous? OPD 7) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD 8) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD 9) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 10) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPP 10 Relief. On framing of the issues, plaintiff was required to lead its evidence, but the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence and consequently, the evidence of the plaintiff was closed under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. On 07.01.2000, defendants also stated that no evidence is required on their behalf as the plaintiff has chosen not to prove its case. Accordingly, after closing defendants' evidence, the trial court dismissed all the three suits with costs on the same day.
(3.) AGGRIEVED of the judgments and decrees, plaintiff filed Civil Appeals No. 21. 20 and 19 dated 23.02.2000, respectively in the Court of District Judge, Gurgaon. These appeals also resulted in dismissal vide judgments and decrees dated 03.12.2002.;