11.The appellant has laid the suit for specific performance based on the sale letter dated 11.08.1995 marked as Ex.A1. On a perusal of Ex.A1, it is seen that the same is found to be only a sale deed and not the sale letter/agreement as such. It is found that all the ingredients necessary for the sale transaction are incorporated in the said document and the document also recites as if the entire sale consideration had been paid by the appellant to the vendors and the vendors thereby had entrusted the possession of the property comprised therein, in favour of the appellant and that thereby the appellant had been granted the absolute right in respect of the property conveyed thereunder, to be enjoyed by her and her legal representatives forever absolutely and also undertaken to discharge any encumbrance in respect of the property conveyed thereunder and accordingly, it is seen that, a reading to the recitals contained in Ex.A1 would only go to show that it is indeed a pucca sale deed. Furthermore, on a naked view of the said document, it is seen that the recital incorporated therein, as if the vendors had agreed to execute the registered sale deed as and when demanded from them has been incorporated at the end and the said insertion is found to be written in a different ink and also found to be totally unconnected with the other recitals found in the document. When the earlier recitals are found to be conveying the possession, title to the property conveyed thereunder in favour of the appellant absolutely, there is no need for inclusion of such a recital as if the vendors had undertaken to execute the registered document in favour of the appellant as and when demanded. Therefore, as rightly putforth, the abovesaid recital had been incorporated in the document at the end, at a later point of time and accordingly, the ink pertaining to the same is found to be differing with the ink of the other recitals contained in the same. Even the word “letter” written at the top of the said document is found to be in different ink. The document recites as if the same is a sale deed for Rs.15,000/-. Thus, it is found that Ex.A1 had been taken by the appellant only as the sale deed from the executors thereof, however, the said document has not been registered in accordance with law. Left with no other alternative, with a view to enforce the said document in a court of law, it is seen that the abovesaid insertions had come to be made by the appellant and accordingly, it is seen that the ink portions of the aforestated recitals differ as abovenoted in the said document with reference to the undertaking given by the vendors that they would execute the registered sale deed as and when demanded in favour of the appellant and also the word “letter” written at the top.
