High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Mulayam Singh v. Ranbir Singh - SECOND APPEAL No. - 1357 of 1976  RD-AH 15617 (17 September 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 30
SECOND APPEAL NO. 1357 OF 1976
Mulayam Singh - Defendant-Appellant
Ranbir Singh (since deceased) represented
by Bari Beti and others - Plaintiff-Respondents
Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, J.
Heard Shri V.B. Khare, learned counsel for appellant. No one appears for respondent.
Suit No. 46 of 1970 for specific performance of contract was decreed by the trial court on 21.9.1970. The Civil Appeal No. 207 of 1970, arising thereof, was dismissed by the appellate court on 21.5.1976. Aggrieved the defendant-appellant has filed this second appeal.
Brief facts giving rise to this case are that defendant entered into an agreement to sell one-third share of the disputed plots No. 577-A and 577-B of Village Bahadurpur, Majhgawa on 21.6.1969 at the agreed price of Rs.6000/-, out of which Rs. 2000/- was paid in advance. The sale deed was to be executed within one year on obtaining Bhumidhari Sanad. The defendant however did not respond to the notices. Even after obtaining Bhumidhari Sanad, a notice was served on 17.3.1970 to which a false reply was given. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that he was always ready and willing to make payment of Rs. 4000/-, the balance of sale.
The defendant denied plaint allegations stating that he never agreed to transfer the land. He was Sirdar and that the suit was not maintainable. Both the courts below found that the agreement was valid and did not require registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. The defendant was bhumidhari of the plot and was awarded bhumidhari sanad by which he acquired transferrable rights in the land in dispute. The Courts below have recorded concurrent findings that the agreement was proved by the witnesses and that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
Learned counsel for appellant contends that the appeal was admitted on 13.8.1976 without framing any substantial question of law. It is contended that the agreement was not registered and averment of readiness and willingness to perform his part of contract without there being any evidence, was not sufficient. It is also stated that the appellant did not execute any agreement for sale of the plot and that the agreement was a fictitious document.
On going through the judgments of court below, I find that all the questions raised by learned counsel for appellant are pure questions of fact. The agreement was proved by the witnesses to the document. It was not required to be registered, and that the plaintiff had led evidence to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The second appeal does not raise any question of laws and is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.