IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: RSA.No.104/2008. Date of Decision :17th March, 2008. Smt. Giano Devi and others. …Appellants. Versus: Smt. Jamila Begum. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for judgment?1 For the appellant: Mr.Dushyant Dadhwal, Advocate. . For Respondent. Mr.Suneet Goel, Advocate. Sanjay Karol, J. The present appeal arises out of the concurrent findings of fact returned by the courts below. The present appellants, successor-in-interest of the plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of the oral agreement entered into between the plaintiff-Mehar Singh and defendant- Smt.Jamila Begam for sale of constructed Booth, Plot No.3-VS, Sector-6, Gurudwara Market, Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the suit property) in which the plaintiff is a tenant. As per the plaintiff, the property was agreed to be sold by the defendant for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and the statutory permission in this regard was also obtained. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 In defence the defendant took the plea that the agreed sale consideration between the parties was Rs.6,50,000/- out of which Rs.4,00,000/- was to be paid prior to the execution of the sale deed and Rs.2,50,000/- was to be paid at the time of the registration of sale deed as a sale consideration to be reflected in the sale deed. . The terms were specifically agreed upon on the asking of the plaintiff as he wanted to avoid the payment of entire stamp duty. The plaintiff who was close to the Chief Minister, in connivance with the revenue official got, an incorrect statement of the defendant recorded before the revenue authorities and being an influential person he was trying to get a fully constructed property for a petty sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the defendant had agreed to sell the suit property in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.2,50,000/- ? ….OPP. 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? …OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to institute the suit?. …OPD. 4.Whether the plaintiff has not property valued the suit for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?. …OPD. 5. Relief. Considering the evidence led by the parties, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the defendant was a widow and an illiterate lady and her statement recorded before the revenue authorities, heavily relied upon by the plaintiff to establish the sale consideration to be Rs.2,50,000/-, could not have been made by the defendant as there was enough material on record to show that the 3 market value of the property was much more than the stated agreed price. Relying upon the statement of Kashmir Singh (PW-3) son of the plaintiff, the court came to the conclusion that the parties had been litigating for the eviction of the suit premises and were not having cordial relations. The court found that the defendant had been ready and willing to execute the sale deed for the agreed sum of Rs. 6.5 lakh but, however, since the plaintiff failed to pay the entire agreed sale consideration, it could not be said that the defendant had violated any of the terms of the agreement entitling the plaintiff for a decree of specific performance. Even in the written statement, the defendant made an offer to get the sale deed executed but the plaintiff chose not to accept the offer and consequently, the defendant, sold the property after obtaining permission from the authorities for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in favour of Shri Chander Shekher. The permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner, in favour of the plaintiff , in fact, was got cancelled and a fresh permission in favour of Shri Chander Shekher was granted on 27th August, 2003. The judgment dated 22nd April, 2006 passed by the trial Court in suit No. 39/1 of 2005/2003 titled as Mehar Singh Vs. Smt. Jamila Begam was assailed by the plaintiff by way of an appeal No.46 of 2006 titled as Mehar Singh and others Vs. Smt. Jamila Begam before the District Judge, Bilaspur and the First Appellate Court while affirming the judgment passed by the trial Court dismissed the appeal on 30th November, 2007. The First Appellate Court held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the terms of the oral agreement whereby the property was agreed to be sold for a consideration of Rs.2,50,000/- and accepted 4 the version of the defendant that the total sale consideration was Rs.6,50,000/- and only for the purpose of registration the sale consideration was to be shown to be Rs.2,50,000/- which was done on the asking of the plaintiff himself. The courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiff has failed to prove any oral agreement whereby the parties had agreed to sell the property in question for a total consideration of Rs.2,50,000/-. The defendant, a widow and an illiterate lady was willing to honour her word even in the Court. Only when the plaintiff refused she subsequently sold the property. There is no error or perversity in the judgments passed by the courts below. In my view, no substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the present appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. March 17, 2008(R)