Heard Shri H.M. Srivastava, learned counsel for the defendants/appellants and Shri H.N. Singh, has appeared for respondents no. 1 to 7.
This is an appeal by the defendants/appellants after loosing the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 20.11.80 from both the courts below.
Sri H.M. Srivastava, learned counsel for the defendants/appellants has submitted that no agreement to sell as alleged was actually executed by Smt. Radha Devi. In fact she had intended to borrow a sum of Rs.6,000/- from Kalyan Singh by mortgaging her land whereupon the agreement to sell dated 20.11.80 was got executed without knowledge of the same to her.
Admittedly, the agreement to sell dated 20.11.80 is a registered document and the execution of the said document is admitted to the parties. The only question is whether the same was executed by Smt. Radha Devi after understanding its import.
The plea that it was executed without actually knowing about its contents is being raised by the defendants/appellants and as such the burden to prove the same lie heavily upon them. The defendants/appellants have not adduced any evidence to establish that the document was not read out and explained to Smt. Radha Devi. In such a situation, the courts below have not committed any error in holding the due execution of the aforesaid document.
The second submission of Sri Srviastava, that the plaintiffs/respondents have failed to prove readiness and willingness on their part as contemplated by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act inasmuch as they were not having enough money for getting the sale deed executed.
The submission apparently is devoid of merits inasmuch as in the plaint the plaintiffs/respondents have clearly averred about the continuous readiness and willingness on their part to perform the conditions of the agreement. The defendants/appellants in the written statement have not specifically and clearly disputed the financial capacity of the plaintiffs/respondents with regard to the payment of the balance sale consideration. The only thing alleged in the written statement is to the effect that the plaintiffs/respondents were not having sufficient amount of Rs.30,000/- for payment in lump sum and even Rs.12,000/- which was paid in advance. However, there is no averment that after the execution of the agreement, they were not possessed of sufficient means for the payment of balance amount of Rs.18,000/-. Even then the courts below have recorded that the plaintiffs/respondents were possessed of the necessary funds as they have sold out their crop and received a sum of Rs.14,000/-.
In view of the above and the finding returned by the courts below the submission raised has no force and is rejected.
Another submission is the sale consideration allegedly agreed is inadequate and therefore, sale deed cannot be ordered to be executed.
The lower appellate court declined to accept the above submission on the ground that the evidence of both the parties on the above aspect in no way proves the inadequacy of consideration agreed. Moreover, insufficiency of the consideration when the agreement has been held to be validly executed cannot be ground for ignoring it. There is no reason for me to disagree with the above conclusion.
Lastly it has been submitted that the defendants/appellants are the bona fide purchasers of the land in dispute having purchased the same vide sale deed dated 15.2.97 from Smt. Radha Devi. In this connection, the courts below on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties have clearly returned a finding that the defendants/appellants have not led any evidence and rather accepted that they have not made any inquires with regard to the existence of the agreement to sell or that the land in dispute has earlier been sold or not.
It is admitted on record that the defendants/appellants have not inspected the record of the Sub-registrar concerned as is usually done before entering into any sale transaction of immovable property. Merely for the reason that the name of Smt. Radha Devi continued in the revenue records could not be sufficient to prove that the defendants/appellants are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration.
All the aforesaid points as raised by the counsel for the defendants/appellants are purely factual in nature and involve no question of law.
No other point has been raised and argued before me.
Accordingly, I am of the view that the appeal raises no substantial question of law and it stands concluded by the findings of fact recorded by the courts below. It is accordingly devoid of merits and is dismissed. No costs.
Order Date :- 22.9.2010 piyush