Appeal against specific performance decree. High Court held lower court justified in finding agreement valid despite defendant's fraud allegations, noting defendant's literacy and written endorsement admitting advance payment, and distinguished cited precedent.
Impugned judgment and decree confirmed; appeal dismissed without cost; stay order vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
F.A.No.454 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No.454 of 2006
------
(Against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2006 passed by learned Subordinate Judge-I, Khunti in Title Suit No.10 of 2003)
Adit Singh S/O Late Jagdeo Singh R/O village Gangira P.S. Murhu District Ranchi .... .... …. Appellant/Defendant
Versus
.... .... ... Respondents/Plaintiffs
For the Appellant : Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. D. K. Chakrawarti, Advocate
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
1
F.A.No.454 of 2006
requirement expressed his intention to sell the suit land and the plaintiffs agreed to purchase the same. The total consideration amount of the suit land was fixed at Rs.3,00,000/-. The defendant voluntarily out of free will entered into a registered agreement for sale dated 21.03.2003 with the plaintiffs to sell the suit land for consideration amount of Rs.3,00,000/and on the date of such agreement, the defendant received as sum of Rs.2,95,000/- as advance. After execution of the agreement, the plaintiffs requested the defendant to execute and register the sale deed on receipt of the balance consideration amount but the defendant avoided the same on one pretext or another. On the instructions of the defendant, the plaintiffs also purchased the required non-judicial stamp on 25.05.2003 in the name of the plaintiffs and duly communicated to the defendant about purchase of the stamp paper. But still the defendant postponed the execution of the sale deed. The plaintiffs have all along been ready and willing to purchase the suit land on payment of balance consideration amount and made repeated requests to the defendant regularly but still the sale deed has not been executed by the defendant hence the plaintiffs filed the suit.
2
F.A.No.454 of 2006
before the Registration Officer but such assurance was not fulfilled. The defendant made repeated demands to pay the advance money agreed upon but the plaintiffs always postponed the matter for one excuse or the other. It is further specifically pleaded by the defendant that he was not allowed to read the agreement nor the same was read over to him and the plaintiffs have adopted fraudulent method in going through the agreement and getting it registered. The defendant was asked to trust that everything was okay. Hence, it was pleaded by the defendant that the alleged agreement was illegal, invalid and was not operational. The defendant further pleaded that there was no valid reason to withhold only Rs.5,000/- out of the total consideration amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as claimed by the plaintiffs and not to get the sale deed itself executed by the defendant. The defendant also pleaded that the plaintiffs have never requested the defendant to execute the sale deed on receipt of the balance consideration amount.
Issues
3
F.A.No.454 of 2006
entitled?
Ext. 1 is agreement for sale between the parties dated 21.03.2003.
Ext. 2/a is endorsement made by the executant on first page of the
agreement.
4
F.A.No.454 of 2006
advance was paid towards the consideration amount. It is further submitted by Mr. Sharma that the learned court below erred by not taking into consideration the oral testimony and the evidence in the record in respect of the contention of the defendant that the said agreement was executed by fraud practised by the plaintiffs and the scribe on the ground that Section 92 of the Evidence Act envisages that no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to an instrument which has been reduced to a form of a document relating to the terms of any contract, grant or other disposition of a property. In support of his contention, Mr. Sharma relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court passed in the case of Ganesh Prasad Versus Deo Nandan Raut and Others reported in AIR 1985 PATNA 94 wherein the Hon’ble Patna High Court has held as under in paragraph-8 :-
8. “……………What follows from these provisions is that parol or collateral evidence as to a condition precedent to any such contract or disposition of property is permissible, but existence of any distinct subsequent agreement to rescind or modify the same in cases in which such terms are incorporated in a document registered in accordance with law is not permissible. Though the general principle is that extrinsic parol evidence contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from the terms of solemn written instrument is inadmissible, there are numerous exceptions and qualifications to it. Strict application of the rule may operate harshly if the exceptions are not allowed their full say because a person unwittingly falling a prey to a fraud, intimidation or similar designs shall not get opportunity to prove the same and the rule shall operate not in the interest of justice but against it…………..”.
5
F.A.No.454 of 2006
endorsement on the said agreement in his own handwriting that he has received Rs.2,95,000/- as advance and it has come in the oral evidence by the parties that the agreement for sale was necessitated because the parties had come for executing the deed of sale but as on that date the stamp papers of the required value were not available, so instead of executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, the defendant entered into an agreement for sale vide Ext. 1. Hence, the contention of the defendant that he has not received the consideration amount for which he has made endorsement in his own handwriting, which writing is admitted by the defendant and has been marked Ext.2/a goes to establish the genuineness of the agreement entered into between the parties. Hence, it is submitted that the learned court below having rightly decreed the suit, this appeal, being without any merit, be dismissed.
“Whether the learned court below has rightly appreciated the evidence in the record in its proper perspective?”
6
F.A.No.454 of 2006
Registrar.
7
F.A.No.454 of 2006
the agreement was marked Ext.2. It was identified by Kodua Mahto. The P.W.2 and P.W.3 also came on the date of execution of the agreement. The endorsement on the first page of the agreement was in the handwriting of the D.W.1-defendant and on confrontation it was marked Ext.2/a.
8
F.A.No.454 of 2006
very well read the amount Rs.3,00,000/-. There is no plausible explanation put forth by the defendant why he did not object to the consideration amount of Rs.3,00,000/- being mentioned in the said agreement marked Ext. 1.
Proviso (1).- Any fact may be proved which would invalidate any document or which would entitle any person to any decree or order relating thereto; such as fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execution, want of capacity in any contracting party, want or failure of consideration, or mistake in fact or law.
Proviso (2).- The existence of any separate oral agreement as to any matter on which a document is silent, and which is not inconsistent with its terms may be proved. In considering whether or not this proviso applies, the Court shall have regard to the degree of formality of the document.
Proviso (3).- The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation under any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved.
Proviso (4).- The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify any such contract, grant or disposition of property, may be proved, except in cases in which such contract, grant or disposition of property is by law required to be in writing, or has been registered according to the law in force for the time being as to the registration of documents.
Proviso (5).- Any usage or custom by which incidents not expressly
9
F.A.No.454 of 2006
mentioned in any contract are usually annexed to contracts of that description, may be proved:
Provided that the annexing of such incident would not be repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the express terms of the contract.
Proviso (6).- Any fact may be proved which shows in what manner the language of a document is related to existing facts.
Thus it is crystal clear from Section 92 of the Evidence Act that though certainly the evidence regarding fraud, intimidation, illegality etc. can be adduced to invalidate any document but in this case, as already indicated above, the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant was very much aware that the consideration amount was fixed at Rs.3,00,000/- and he has received Rs.2,95,000/- as advance which he has categorically mentioned in his own handwriting by making endorsement in the first page of the agreement and he has admitted the admission of the agreement before the Registering Officer without any demur. So, the ratio of Ganesh Prasad (supra) is certainly not applicable in the facts of this case and this Court is of the considered view that there is no improper appreciation of the evidence in the record by the learned court below and the evidence in the record is sufficient to show that the defendant executed an agreement marked Ext. 1 being very much aware that the consideration amount was of Rs.3,00,000/- and he has executed the agreement on receipt of Rs.2,95,000/-.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 02nd of January, 2019 AFR/ Animesh
10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court rightly appreciated the evidence regarding the validity of the agreement for sale and the payment of advance?
Whether the appellant's claim of fraud and lack of proper execution is supported by the evidence on record?
Whether the proviso to Section 92 of the Evidence Act applies to invalidate the registered agreement in this case?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ganesh Prasad Versus Deo Nandan Raut and Others reported in AIR 1985 PATNA 94Distinguished¶48
Adit Singh
Anand Ganjhu
Chitranjan Mahto Ganjhu
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
