The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the second appeal partly. It held no illegality in the judgment for specific performance but reduced the interest from 12% to 4% per annum, calculating it from the trial court judgment date of 07.10.1997.
Decree to pay Rs. 24,000/- with interest at the rate of 4% per annum instead of 12% from 07.10.1997.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 150/2009
Giriraj Singh S/o Shri Data Ram, Village Dabak, Presently R/o Sikri Patti, Sikri, Tehsil Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur
----Appellant/Defendant
Versus
Respondent/Plaintiff
----Respondent/Plaintiff
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vijay Pathak For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Goyal through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
Order
21/01/2021
The instant civil second appeal has been filed by the appellant/defendant under Section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2008 passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Deeg, District Bharatpur (for short the ‘Appellate Court’) in Civil Regular Appeal No. 6/2002 whereby the appellate Court while confirming and upholding the judgment of learned Civil Judge, Deeg, District Bharatpur passed in Civil Suit No. 9/96 (11/91) has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the agreement in question was false and forged one and the same has
(2 of 3)
[CSA-150/2009]
not been registered under the Indian Registration Act. There are contradictions in the statements of plaintiff witnesses and even PW1- Mohan Singh and PW2- Phool Khan are the interested witnesses and no reliance can be placed on their testimonies. PW3 – Shiv Dutt Katara is a Deed Writer who stated that the amount was given by the plaintiff to the appellant/defendant in his presence. Therefore, the allegation of transaction of Rs. 24,000/is false. The learned trial Court has erred in granting relief of Rs. 24,000/- in the suit of the plaintiff filed for specific performance which has been wrongly affirmed by the appellate Court.
Counsel for the respondent submits that plaintiff’s witnesses proved the averments of the plaint and the fact of taking amount of Rs. 24,000/- is established and there is no contradictions to this extent in the findings recorded by the Court below and no substantial question of law is involved in the present second appeal.
Perused the impugned judgments and material placed before the Court.
PW-1- Mohan Singh and PW-2- Phool Khan in his testimony deposed that in lieu of Rs. 24,000/- the agreement of sale was executed. PW-3 Shiv Dutt Katar corroborated the testimony of respondent/plaintiff and PW-2- Phool Khan. The defendant – appellant did not appear in the evidence, therefore, the trial Court passed the decree of Rs. 24,000/- along with interest @ 12% which has been affirmed by the appellate Court.
I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned Judgments passed by both the courts below with regard to specific performance. The trial Court while dismissing the suit for specific performance of contract of the appellant was directed to pay Rs.
(3 of 3) [CSA-150/2009]
24,000/- along with 12% interest. The interest @ of 12% per annum is much higher in view of prevailing rate of interest and there exists no such agreement with regard to the interest. However, the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the amount of Rs. 24,000/- with interest at the rate of 4% per annum instead of interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the judgment passed by the of trial Court i.e. on 07.10.1997.
The second appeal is partly allowed.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J
Ashu/14
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the award of 12% interest is sustainable given the absence of agreement on interest rates.
Whether the appellant challenges the forgery of the agreement and lack of registration.
Whether the lower courts erred in allowing the claim for compensation under Section 100 CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Giriraj Singh
1. Bhim Singh
2. Parmanand
Goverdhan Bardhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
