[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR :: J U D G M E N T :: D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 18/2000 NAND RAM VS. DHUDI & ANR. Date of Judgment :: March 11, 2010 :: P R E S E N T :: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KAPADIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. K.R. Choudhary for appellant. Mr. B.N. Kalla for respondent No.1. BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE MR. A.M. KAPADIA, J.) 1. Challenge in this D.B. Civil Special Appeal filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is to the correctness of the judgment dated 03.05.2000 rendered in S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 73 of 1985 by the learned Single Judge, by which the appeal filed by respondent No.1 Dhudi w/o Roopa Jat (original defendant No.2) against the appellant (original plaintiff) came to be allowed and thereby judgment and decree dated 30.04.1985 passed by learned District Judge, Balotra camp Barmer (for short, 'trial Court') rendered in Civil Original Suit No.19 of 1982 has been dismissed, and resultantly, the suit filed by appellant-plaintiff Nand Ram against defendant [2] No.1 & 2 seeking specific performance of contract pursuant to agreement dated 26.01.1981 has been dismissed. 2. Facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that the plaintiff Nand Ram filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against defendants No.1 & 2 Khetu and Dhudi respectively in the Court of District Judge, Balotra on 28.08.1982 alleging that on 26.01.1981 the husband of defendant No.1 deceased Kheta executed agreement Ex.1 in favour of the plaintiff by which he agreed to sell the land of Khasra No.34 measuring 66 bighas 7 biswas and Khasras No.32 and 33 for Rs. 12,000 to the plaintiff for Rs.12000 and out of that Rs.10,000 were received by deceased Kheta as advance and it was agreed that rest amount of Rs.2,000 would be paid by the plaintiff to deceased Kheta within six months and thereafter registered sale deed would be executed but the possession of the land was given to the plaintiff on the date of execution of the agreement. It was further alleged that the plaintiff requested deceased Kheta two-three times for registry in pursuance of agreement Ex.1 but same was not got done by deceased Kheta and after seven months from the date of execution of agreement Ex.1, deceased Kheta died and after his death defendant No.1 became heir of deceased Kheta and the plaintiff also requested defendant No.1 for registry in his favour in pursuance of agreement Ex.1 but she also did not do so. It is further alleged that defendant No.2 is the sister-in-law of [3] defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 executed a gift deed on 09.06.1982 and the land which was agreed to be sold by deceased Kheta to plaintiff was given by defendant No.1 to defendant No.2 through the said gift deed which was got registered and since they were threatening to dispossess the plaintiff from the land in question, therefore, he filed the suit for permanent injunction with the prayer to direct the defendants to get the sale deed registered in his favour in pursuance of agreement Ex.1. 3. The suit of the plaintiff was contested by defendant No.2 by filing written statement before the trial court on 15.07.1983 stating that no agreement was ever executed by deceased Kheta in favour of plaintiff and the said agreement is forged one and the land in question is still in possession of defendant No.2 as it was never given to the plaintiff and the case of the plaintiff that he is in possession of the land in question is totally false. It was further stated that plaintiff never asked either to defendant No.1 or defendant No.2 to get the sale deed registered in his favour and further it was stated that defendant No.1 who is the owner of the land in question has gifted the land on 09.06.1982 to defendant No.2 vide gift deed and since 09.06.1982 defendant No.2 has been in possession of the land in question and as such when the plaintiff is not in possession of the land, no question of dispossessing him arises. It was further stated that the stamp of agreement Ex.1 was never purchased by [4] deceased Kheta but it was purchased by PW3 Harupa Ram and though the stamp was purchased on 08.01.1981, the agreement was executed on 26.01.1981 which has been forged by PW3 Harupa Ram with the conspiracy of PW2 Bhera Ram, PW4 Anda Ram, PW5 Raimal Ram, PW6 Sona and others, inasmuch as, deceased Kheta filed a complaint under Sec.107 Cr.P.C. against PW3 Harupa Ram, Tulcha and Dungra on 08.09.1981 and defendant No.1 also filed an application under Sec.97 Cr.P.C. about the search of her husband deceased Kheta against PW3 Harupa Ram and thereafter deceased Kheta was released from the custody of PW3 Harupa Ram etc. and apart from this many other litigations were going on between defendant No.1 and PW3 Harupa Ram and others. Therefore, it was prayed by defendant No.2 to dismiss the suit. It may be noted that defendant No.1 has not contested the suit. 4. The trial Court on pleadings of the parties framed issues and recorded evidence and on assessment of the evidence it was held that agreement dated 26.01.1981 was executed by deceased Kheta in favour of plaintiff for Rs.12,000 and Rs.10,000 were received by deceased Kheta but the possession as alleged by the plaintiff was not given to the plaintiff. On issue No.2, the learned District Judge held that the gift deed Ex.2 would not help the defendants at all. On the aforesaid finding, the trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and defendants were directed to [5] execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff. Aggrieved thereby, defendant No.2 filed S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.73 of 1985 before the learned Single Judge. 5. The learned Single Judge on reappraisal of evidence has given findings in Para 28, 29 & 30 of the impugned judgment and came to the conclusion that the trial Court has wrongly decided the issues in favour of the plaintiff and the findings recorded by the trial course are perverse as they were not based on appreciation of evidence of both the sides critically and analytically. It was also held that agreement Ex.1 was never executed by deceased Kheta in favour of plaintiff nor Rs.10,000 were paid by the plaintiff to deceased Kheta. On the aforesaid findings, the trial Court has allowed the appeal and thereby dismissed the suit, giving rise to this intra-court appeal. 6. We have heard learned counsel for appellant Mr. K.R. Choudhary and learned counsel for respondent No.1 Mr. B.N. Kalla and have also perused the impugned judgment rendered by learned Single Judge as well as the judgment of trial Court and the record of the case. 7. Now the question that arises for our consideration is whether the agreement Ex.1 dated 26.01.1981 was executed by deceased Kheta or not. In this connection, it would be advantageous to refer to the oral testimony of [6] plaintiff Nand Ram himself, who has been examined as PW1 and has stated that deceased Kheta executed agreement Ex.1 in his favour which was scribed by PW2 Bhera Ram and he paid Rs.10,000 to deceased Kheta and thereafter was put in possession of the land in question by deceased Kheta. In cross examination, he has admitted that the terms of agreement Ex.1 were settled one month prior to its execution and the stamps for agreement were purchased by PW3 Harupa Ram after one month of settlement. He testified that the gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 was in his knowledge but he did not take any step to get cancelled the said gift deed. He also accepted that he did not sent any notice either to defendant No.1 or defendant No.2 for getting the sale deed registered in his favour as per the terms of agreement Ex.1 and never asked defendant No.2 for registry in his favour. He further stated that when agreement Ex.1 was executed in his favour, at that time, besides him and deceased Kheta, PW2 Bhera Ram, PW3 Harupa Ram, PW4 Anda Ram, PW5 Raimal Ram, PW6 Sona and others were present. 8. To prove the case, plaintiff also examined PW2 Bhera Ram, who is the alleged scribe of agreement Ex.1 and has stated in his cross examination that after execution of agreement Ex.1 he saw deceased Kheta only once and that he did not know from where the plaintiff brought the money. He also testified that he did not know whether defendant No.2 had [7] been put in possession on 09.06.1982. He admitted that he had written only one agreement Ex.1 in his life and stated that plaintiff is more educated than him and he did not know who brought the stamps. 9. Similarly, PW3 Harupa Ram, who is uncle of deceased Kheta, has stated in his cross examination that stamps for agreement Ex.1 were purchased by him one month prior to its execution i.e. 26.01.1981 and on the stamps the name of its purchaser is PW3 Harupa Ram and not deceased Kheta. He stated that agreement Ex.1 was executed on 26.01.1981 and the terms of agreement were also settled on that day but immediately thereafter said that the terms of agreement were settled 15 days prior to its execution. He denied having any knowledge about any suit filed by defendant No.1 against him in the Court of SDM. He admitted that he filed a criminal case against defendant No.1. 10. Likewise, PW4 Anda Ram has stated in his cross examination that the terms of agreement Ex.1 were not read over to him and when the agreement was executed the rate of land was Rs.1,000 per bigha. That apart, PW4 Anda Ram & PW5 Sona in their statements have also admitted that at the time when agreement Ex.1 was executed the market price of land was Rs.1000 per bigha. [8] 11. On behalf of defendant side, defendant No.2 Dudi has been examined as DW1 and has stated categorically that no such agreement Ex.1 was ever executed by deceased Kheta in favour of the plaintiff and she has been put in possession through Ex.2 Gift deed and she has also proved her documents Ex.A-1 to A-6. On behalf of defendant side defendant No.1 Khetu w/o deceased Kheta was also examined as DW6 who executed the gift deed in favour of defendant No.2 and put defendant No.2 in possession of the land in question. She further and stated that plaintiff never approached her for registry in his favour in pursuance of agreement Ex.1. 12. On reappraisal of the evidence, as discussed hereinabove, it is seen that the plaintiff never approached defendant No.1 for registry in pursuance of Ex.1 after death of her husband Kheta and such type of agreement was never in existence but the same was forged later on. The plaintiff was aware about the gift deed Ex.2 which was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 on 09.06.1982 but he did not take any steps to get it cancelled which shows that no such agreement Ex.1 was ever executed by deceased Kheta in favour of the plaintiff. 13.So far as possession of the plaintiff is concerned, it reveals from the evidence of the witnesses examined by plaintiff that he was put in possession by deceased Kheta on [9] 26.01.1981 but this fact was found totally false and it throws serious doubt on the execution of agreement Ex.1 in the manner alleged by the plaintiff and also on the veracity of the statements of plaintiff and his witnesses. 14.The price for which the land in question was shown to be sold by deceased Kheta to the plaintiff in the agreement Ex.1 is quite meager whereas at the relevant time even as per the witnesses of plaintiff it was about Rs.1000 per bigha but in this case it appears that 66 bighas land was agreed to be sold for Rs.12,000 only. This price appears to be inadequate and from this point of view also there is a doubt whether the agreement Ex.1 was executed by deceased Kheta in favour of the plaintiff or not. 15. So far as readiness and willingness on the part of plaintiff is concerned, on reappraisal of the evidence, it has to be held that plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The plaintiff has clearly admitted in his statement that he never approached defendant No.2 or defendant No.1 asking them for registry of the land in question in his favour and further the plaintiff never served any notice either to deceased Kheta or to both the defendants, therefore, from the evidence of the plaintiff it appears that there is absence of continuous readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff and actually no agreement was ever executed by deceased Kheta during his [10] lifetime in favour of the plaintiff. 16. It is settled principle of law that in a suit for specific performance of contract, the plaintiff must come with clean hands and in the present case the plaintiff has not come with clean hands as he and his witnesses have given false evidence on the point of possession stating that deceased Kheta put the plaintiff in possession of the land in question on the date of execution of agreement Ex.1. 17. In view of the aforesaid state of affairs, the learned Single Judge was right in coming to the conclusion that the learned District Judge erroneously decided the issues and passed the decree of specific performance of agreement in favour of plaintiff without correctly appreciating the evidence on record. 18. It is also settled principle of law that finding of fact arrived at by the first appellate Court i.e. learned Single Judge is final as the first appellate Court is the last fact finding authority. In the instant case, the learned appellate Judge has given categorical finding that the agreement was never executed and the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and he had not come with clean hands and the agreement was executed for a very meager amount of Rs.12,000 for 66 bighas of land even in the year 1981. [11] 19.In view of this, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge as no other finding is possible on the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the case. Therefore, no interference is called for in this appeal with regard to the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge. 20. Seen in the above context, instant intra-court appeal lacks merit, deserves to be dismissed. 21. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed. 22.No orders as to costs. [GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS], J. [A.M. KAPADIA], J. jpa/