IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 SECONDAPPEAL N0. z®) /2008 APPELLANT/ PLAINTIFF \.-(&^-^4^ ^- ^:'£r'^-^ %£.::.^^<* RESPONDENTS : DEFENDANTS ^l^ Govind Ram, aged about 35 years, S/o Shri Punit Ram Sahu, R/o Kurud, Tahsil-Kurud, District- Dhamtan (C.G.) VERSUS Pardeshi Ram, aged about 58 years, S/o Shri Sukhdev Sahu, R/o Village Kurud, Tahsil-Kurud, Distrit-Dhamtari (C.G.) Ha] Mukam-Village Tabarbahra, Tahsil-Gariyaband, District-Raipur (C.G.) ^-- ^ State of Chhattisgarh, ^'y1^^/-rl Through : Collector, Dhamtari, ;to A.G.SiLASPUjDistrict-Dhamtari (C.G.) SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE s s S S*^"i.S 6 ^*^^*^^ S"ta?ia*S" ^^5Pn .^^£ £55^%•*^°^*S.FS!fc^"^ ^ ^^B.5 A 3^ ^^^.S ft ^% S^5 £?'% niynUyuKi US-ynKfti SSaSsAKKAI Btl.ASPUK a_^ aa_ _ ss^a—^t.jL^- B^^^A'-^^. yti—— — a- — —ASjf--—- —— RJIE~— ^fets|a^j^ <^J~IS^EI~ y^^^Ea"2^uca ^^'|r| ^lt^^S'l^^ lldrS?^SI't^t1fi ^Lil-in^T ^"ISi tf^:—-^a - ^"?<s'?-tr; l^is^asl fi sk fk't -^ ^a-n -a ^. s !'^f^^^s^ ^S* S^.-. I^Os ^tf^l- OS ^t^iis Goviiid BeFSHS —'arOeSnj aEiOlRer nstfrir 02.-15-7nifi i S= Ss'i^ t -^ •: Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge a-ia^^t-i ^•f^.s Byft—r^^.B- nit^n i-yuKi ut" l^w ^ ^ S?^ ^?§-S f ftfi^i'- g.A. N0. / WW ^pp^l^ 1 ^j'ilT Govind Ram 'i^L^^r-i ^ <3 Paru^hi and Shri i.i'i. frgjapay, couns®iTorin®appeitani. SrTst Fouzia Miiza, Gounse.' for respondsnt No. 1. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawysr fw the StateiTSSporiuent No.2. d^i^^fc.^^a ig^ 3S )p^^^fft^ A B B 5BLS^^yaffnS ^nb^Tiy^^nt^^ ^^.^ ^^yv "BfaS Sff" ^^ acUUNU AS't'SMt- tJNUfcK UKUfcK IHw Ut" i nt C' g^.S^-s^ ^°ks—sra ft' JUO.GMENT (OZ This te an appea! by the ptalntiit chaitenging th& concurrent judg(nent and decree passsd by ths Courte bstow dismlssing Ms suit for specjfic t^ffOfITt^HC9 OT COfHfSCl. /n\ r?i-..:-A:^ai.~ <.;:.• i-'iainu'i's case •" sriori, is inai an asresn'ieni was execuiso" Betwesr! the on 09/C>4/1998 to of 1,08 bearing Kh'asra No. 915 fc'r Rs.41 lOOO,'-. According {Q ttis plainuff h8 paid ths sntire saje considsratiQn of Rs.41,OtX)/- and ths dsfsndant handsd ovsr posssssion of the land on the date of agr&emerH. Ths saie-deed was to be AV^^uf'sH hv? H^ hi?»i£ ^OH't h^^iSVisr fh& HisfsnNianf fsilisrl ift mi?F:sf& hls ^/rvww*M*i.r'vi wy •w^ v^rtt tv* ie,tshf<f t i «t^»if^¥^?i fci i ^7 ^rfi,* .!<,?) j'uifMf e» iSiii^^rf ii'ei' t(iwu6ifci/ < Ei'i^ narne on the suit-land and in sfMte .of efiorts rriade by the pialntitf tfie defsnda.nt faited to exwute the sate-desd reQuiring f"®pia'ntjff to sw/®hini 18/01/1999, whicti was by frie thereafter the pressni suit was fiisd on 18'04/2C'02. (3.1 The defendant was orocsedey ©x-.oa.'te, howevsr on the basls c-f evldsnce adduceu by ths Ot'airifiii ths triai Coiirt fuund ths avresment to bs susptCious ar'u artlfteiaS. On the bas's of evidenc-e that th®s'.iit tand was not jec&rded >n the rsame of d6!&nc<ant and the area was aiso 0.94 dismiii, ths -A— trial C-ourt conciuded that the defenuant was "ot tnn owner of ihe iand on the date uf agreement. it was also found by the trial C-ourt that there app&afs to be some •nterDQlatiQn/auaitiori in the aareenient iRasmuch as the erttire a.gresmern i" wTittsn in doubie spac-e fryping wnersas ths last part of th& aureement containinQ ths eiause that if for sorne reason the agrsemsnt was not exfrcutsd u!{ Ci9'OS.'t998, ths sarns shaH bs exscuiad by Ci9>Cl6f2C'01, J-» *-- ^...^—-„-»_^At- _ ^,.. apuears to be subseqyent"/ written anu thus on uie basis of this ths triai t-;Qun TOunQ iRat initlatiy Ine iirr!®fixsy ror axecui}Qfi w saie-useu was 09,'C^l^o whsf@'3S the pf^snt suft w§sfil@cl on 1o?Q4,?2^)2 and thus tte sult was fited ^ftef thf^s y^ars Bfid 10 fnonths frorn ths d^te fix^d fof -^-•.^ — --i" <-•- - ——{- -S--^ ——-I AA- - —-J'- -.^ ^S- - ^..U-:- i^ ——- -i i-- _ E:—M^^_— ~3e~^f~^.Tiii~!f\ F?? Ttt^' f^><js5"f'i?a^^ .^r^f^ TT??^r">Tf>i'& ?H?^ Slll? fS l-??SfrE^?? Wif H^¥?F?'ST^?-?F 7^'^S-^JW^^^^\ i ^^ t a<i£lu? '^'a^.^-ft ^A^E'-rf^S ~Wt± i~khS ^ili^rft^TS'dfl^^ ^li'*lrf ^fvt^^ f^ »^^salhf'-rfi ^rf'-f tEi t^t^^l»»^rfl^^ /ji\ TL_- ^^.-^^ A—.^H-4—_ -~^---- {^) Ifie TlfST App8it8i^ UOUft tlSS COnTlffft8u tn^ ttnutHy fSCOfQ^Ct &y 1118 uiai Cuurt and after re-appreclaiing th& evidence has obse"/@ri that ths addit'onaily ts'ped ciaus®of ths agrsenisni has bssn typed by ysing a ui"ere"t frypewriter and thus it appears frrat ths period ier sxseution of sale- deed has been extendsd by iritsrpoiation. Os The tnstant appeat has been admitted on the followlnu substan QuQ^uons oi t^w \' (ti Whether the finQira ofths C-oiirt aefoiv fBts.ur"3 to the tiniB beirs essence of t coniiQvt is y^tt~^^fs f~ fiherthe snwrs o' uie C-ourt betwi' lelasrig to s?"f^"s??1 suspicion of sgf^mQnt is not sustainabfe in thi sDseince weviaencey E^-i ^ r> ris^^t •-_ -?--.-1 ^-^-l~ 4-t--- with the first uuestion as to wtsether the findins of ths Courb bel-ow reiatins to the tirne beirtQ ssserice of (x'ntract ts oervQres'. it is to be ssen that both the Courts below have dismisssd ths sutt on tfi& reasomns thst th^fa Is tntefpotetlon In th^ documsnt, th^f^fof&, th^ sylt fQr s^ctflc \perforrfiaRce cannot be that tfthe interpolated pQrtion js ianored -5- the is barred by limitaticTt. Leamed counse! for ttie respondent argued that in fact the firet substantiai qusstion of iaw frarned by {his Court ^t--- —-J.——:—- -^^. ^.li : not ^fls^ st stl tn vl^w of th©ff?§tsrisl ^vsll^bj^ on f^ord gnd th8 findifius f^cofd^d bv th& Couite below, (7) This Court "as perused the judgment deilvsreu and the iindings record&d by both the C-ourts bsiow, Therg appsars no finding as tu ths fact tiiat tirne was essencs of th& conuact. instsad the tindins ts to uie effsct that uscauss of irneruolauo" i" the document the same canrioi be made basis for d&c'eeing ths suit for specific u6rfQnrianc8. Ths C-ourts bsiow ha'/s heid that ute sutt is barred bv iimitauori; how'evsr no Question of iaw has been framed bv this Court on this issue. & matt'er of vs. Basamma repurted in AIR 2C'Q4 '^rf'..?^ :Ai-—— ?---—g--i-i ^.i-- -„ :-„ -„ ^^—^,rf* R ^t n -^ ^.L —— — - —i.- 'n ine man'er OT vs. sssarsm 3SOit "as been hsiu thus i" para 1S & 18 ofthe rsport ; \ \ i6. A Stmpte test, wherwn any such efeec* as clainied by the deferidant is not gsnusne or ffsiidiilently pfeparsd by {"snlwji&tion of f'eco'us, to asssss ivtotfter pQftaininy to ih9 reciiaSs o' the docuinent, t'ie usuai snd nsti.'f9i aspects v.rfiteh l¥^ffo fOffH p^ft Of StSCh ^i'BBff^nt is in^fa of wh^if^r ^ny 9'miCiaiay is Stsacfteu to ffis same, 'svoiiid fslp ainwng af itw ¥&H€SC^C{^iQ!~L 18. There is a&sofofefy no fiite or divtiim or cwKffffoff t"ai ihere car'noi fee a sate ayreemerrf of tte nsfore, feut OT ^Ki^rft@ c^se's-. fi^fB CQii^ bs aQTS^ffjants of s'^fe. wf^f^A? •he rnajor part of sate c'onsKfe'aifo," is t'eir'g parted Wiffi as advanc'e lesmng a nnnor pofuon to be paid at thB timw of regisuavon ofihe docurrient, bw sn stfch e'wnt thew 'woukS be part psifo'manc'e of the oiiginsi CTvrier of fhe piopwfty bwry s pany to t'i9 eg'eemeni psrtiny wish the posse'ssSon of ihs pfc-pe'ty so ss to have s ho'd both on fact sns in isw bv operauon of -Section 53-fi. of vhe Transfe' of PiuBwtv' Act. 'wtiich ss fniserably missin'-s in the cass in hsrid. a,"d ihefefoiQ. \ it cuttld onty be concfefded Ifest artificialfy, Ex.A. 1 agreement -4- nas cofna iritO exfsiencewiu'ois a"r nawfai Jiwv OT siscc'esswe evenss sowsras pafues wsswing inTO ir» agieeRiens, Qria therefors, it cosfid be weil said ihat the staintiff has rst c'ome wiffi cfesn harif.ss s^king the i'elisf w specmc pef'ormance. Thefsfore, coupfeu it'ffh <he facf fftar (he tower apijeiiate Coiift has foiind thaf fte?B had fc'eso msniffulsisons srid srtsficiaSty attsched to the cofriina inte ue*no of cx. fl,. 1 agiaen~t9nt of ssfe and K iiQs »0( been esiabitsheci ii~i isw on the psn oi the Qi^intiff QH wfiom tha onus is f'saviiv imi^^^ and r^sdiBSS fo' mentton that ffie manmff has miseiably fsited to discfiafye his liabitity m STS proof of ihs ssfe auiBefrsnt, and {hsefo?®,no offwr c'oficfusion exceoiino th9t which tes been 3'fiveu a'* yi' th^ if3WBf Qo^n CQiifd b^ ^ntv^ at f" the iiaht uf ths iuuymsnt of Madras Hiuh Court thls Coun alsG cunciyds that because uf inteipoiafrion maue in the suigect agFeemsRt, ths pia'"{t" is not entitled to a decres for spec'iic psrfonnance. i^vi . • ne ssconcs uuesuOR OT iaw 's aDOui ine TtnQsny rBgarQing syspjcious n8tu''e of the agresrnsnt. Both ure Courts bsfow have ao&reclateu ths ^vldonc& and h^v& concuffontlv found thst tnter&otetlon h§s bQ§n rfi^d^ in the u-ocumerit by inserting thi'ee lines In singie space irs the tast p'aragraph th^feof. The first appsllsts Court h^s Indsp^nd^ntly BXSfnlnQu th^ docyrnQnt and has the findings recorded by the triai Court that fhe documerit is suspicluus. The trial Court has p&inted out the diiferent in space between "nes to hoid that the last oaragraph is wriuen subs-auuertirif, wh^f^ss the iifst ^ppQllste Court has obssrvod thst ths s^iu p^fggf§ph is ty'ped by usjrig different ly'pewriter. Apart frorn this it is to be ssen uiat lultlall'y' th@ tffne fix^d for ^xscutlor' of s^l^~us^3 'w^s illi C^?OBM^^i which was mads as 09i-C'6.'200i by inserting the last paragraph. Ptalnuff has faiisd to ^xpfsln 3.3 IQ whv IQQ^I rl0^€@W§SS^Rt OH 18^01*1999 whisn th^ ti?Ti8 fix@u by th^ p^ftl^s (und^r intefpolst^u part} w§sttli Q^?C^^2^01 > Thls Court h§s tndeperidenuy gone thruugh the uocurnent Ex.Pf'1 and on a reading of the \ docurrient this Court is aiso of the opinion that ths said part was writte" (ater ^' '• s- Tl- .- i — Q". > ne ianguags OT tne iast lins ut tne Qocumera anu tne iriterpOiat&Q pari rspsais ui6 same woros wriK;n ieau 10 an inTsrencs inai iris 'asi paragrapri was written subseQuentiy. The finding recordsu by the Courts bstow rsgardlng the docu-'tent being suspicious and ft wouici be unsafo te decree a su't fur spscsfic peFforrnanc's on the fc'asis of sych docun'rent appsars to bs born out frorn the record and the Courts bejow "ave not coriimittad any error of iaw by holdifiy ih^t th©aocyrfi^ftt Ex>F?1 is suspicious. (1Q) tn vt^w of th^ sbov©,thof^ is no substencQ In this sy^al ¥?hichf3jls anu is riereuy uisnTisses. NQ oraer as 10 cosis. uecres D®arawri uu 4F:^ 1S ?rQ?? tini^ Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 'f^