AN IMPORTANT CASE SC CITATION ON VALIDITY OF JUDICIAL STAMP
PJANARDHANA REDDY
(Querist) 24 September 2009
This query is : Resolved
AN IMPORTANT CASE SC CITATION ON VALIDITY OF JUDICIAL STAMP PAPER
THIRUVENGADA V NAVNEETHMAL
Writ Petition (civil) 290 of 2001
PETITIONER:
Thiruvengada Pillai
RESPONDENT:
Navaneethammal & Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/02/2008
BENCH:
R. V. Raveendran & P.Sathasivam
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J.
This appeal by special leave is by the plaintiff in a suit for specific
performance - OS No.290/1980 on the file of District Munsiff, Tindivanam.
Pleadings
2. In the plaint, the plaintiff (appellant) alleged that the first defendant
(Adilakshmi) agreed to sell the suit schedule property to him under an
agreement of sale dated 5.1.1980 for a consideration of Rs.3,000/-, and
received Rs.2,000/- as advance. She agreed to execute a sale deed by
receiving the balance consideration of Rs.1,000/- within three months.
Possession of the suit property was delivered to him, under the said
agreement. He issued a notice dated 14.2.1980 calling upon the first
defendant to receive the balance price and execute the sale deed. The first
defendant sent a reply denying the agreement. To avoid performing the
agreement of sale, the first defendant executed a nominal sale deed in regard
to the suit property in favour of the second defendant (first respondent
herein), who was her close relative. The said sale was neither valid nor
binding on him. On the said averments, he sought specific performance of
the agreement of sale, against the defendant, alleging that he was ready and
willing to perform his part of the contract.
3. The defendants denied the allegation that the first defendant had
executed an agreement of sale dated 5.1.1980 in favour of the plaintiff or
that she had delivered possession of the suit property to him. They
contended that plaintiff had concocted and forged the document with the
help of his henchmen to defraud the defendants. They claimed that the first
defendant had executed a valid sale deed dated 11.2.1980 in favour of the
second defendant and had delivered possession of the suit property to her;
and that the second defendant had put up a hut in the schedule property and
was actually residing therein. The second defendant raised an additional
contention that she was a bona fide purchaser for value and therefore, the
sale in her favour was valid.
4. During the pendency of the suit first defendant died, and the third
defendant (second respondent herein) was impleaded as her legal
representative, who adopted the written statement of the second defendant.
Issues and the Judgment
5. On the said pleadings, three issues were framed by the trial court : (i)
whether the agreement put forth by the plaintiff was true or concocted ? (ii)
whether the second defendant had purchased the suit property for valid
consideration ? and (iii) whether the plaintiff was entitled to the relief of
specific performance ? The plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and the
scribe of the agreement (Ramaswami Pillai) as PW-2 and an attesting
witness to the sale agreement (Venkatesha Pillai) as PW-3. The agreement
of sale was exhibited as Ex. A-1. The notice and reply were marked as Ex.
A2 and A4. The second defendant, (purchaser of the site), gave evidence as
DW-1 and the third defendant, who was also a witness to the sale deed dated
11.2.1980, was examined as DW-2. The sale deed dated 11.2.1980 executed
by first defendant in favour of second defendant was marked as Ex.B2 and
previous title deed was exhibited as Ex. B4. The plaintiff and his witnesses
gave evidence that the sale agreement was duly executed by first defendant
in favour of plaintiff. The defendants gave evidence about the sale in favour
of second defendant and denied execution of any agreement of sale in favour
of plaintiff.
6. The trial court after appreciating the evidence, dismissed the suit by
judgment and decree dated 28.2.1984. It heriven
