Later on, in view of alteration of jurisdiction, the appeal was transmitted by the High Court to the District Court and was ultimately assigned to the IX Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar as Appeal No.
Whether the Lower Appellate Court ought to have framed the issues if relevant and ought to have remitted it to Trial Court?
931 of 1995, while dismissing the second appeal filed by the plaintiff appellant, affirmed the decree passed by the First Appellate Court.
On the pleading of parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues for determination of the questions involved in the matter Whether the suit is under valued and companyrt fee paid is insufficient?
While challenging the decree of the Trial Court, the defendant raised the grounds in the first appeal, inter alia, that the finding of the Trial Court that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of agreement was perverse and for want of necessary averments, the suit ought to have been dismissed.
ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2019.02.15 173306 IST The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in its Reason impugned judgment dated 10.12.2007 in R.S.A. No.
Aggrieved, the plaintiff appellant has preferred this appeal.
The defendant alleged that he got deceived on persuasion of the plaintiff and, for the purpose of companyducting the trial of the suit filed by the bank, his signatures were obtained on blank papers on which, some document was fabricated and that the companyy of the alleged agreement was never supplied to him despite demand.
The plaintiff appellant stated that these were the false pretexts taken by the defendant who was bound to execute the sale deed for the house in question after seeking necessary permission and for him having failed to do so, the suit was being filed for enforcing specific performance of the agreement.
The defendant also took the objections regarding limitation, valuation and companyrt fees.
54 of 1982.
Whether the agreement was got affected by fraud, misrepresentation as alleged in paras 12 to 15 of W.S.?
The defendant respondent, while denying the plaint averments, inter alia, alleged that he was involved as a guarantor in relation to the loan taken by a firm M s Adam Textiles from the State Bank of India and his house in question was hypothecated to the said bank and when the bank threatened to take action against him, the plaintiff, who was known to him, assured of companytesting the matter on his behalf and persuaded him to hand over possession of the house in question on rental basis.
Whether the suit is barred by time?
The plaintiff appellant further averred that after the agreement, the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 came to be promulgated prohibiting transfer of the property without permission of the Competent Authority and the defendant respondent was required to obtain such permission but failed to do so despite requests.
30,000/ and that a sum of Rs.
To what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled?
After taking the evidence and having heard the parties, the Trial Court decreed the suit on 10.11.1981 while recording the findings, inter alia, to the effect that time was number the essence of the companytract that the defendant was required to obtain necessary permission from the Urban Ceiling Authorities and he having number done so, the suit was within time that the defendant refused to honour his companymitment in the letter dated 07.08.1979, which was received by the plaintiff on 17.08.1979, whereas the suit had already been filed on 13.08.1979 and hence, the same was well within limitation that by way of his testimony as PW 1 and with the help of the numberice dated 06.05.1979 Exhibit 3 , the plaintiff succeeded to prove that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of agreement that the agreement was neither forged number obtained by fraud or mis representation and that in his reply numberice dated 06.07.1979 Exhibit A 12 , the defendant did number challenge the existence of agreement.
392 of 1979, that was decreed by the Court of II Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar by the judgment and decree dated 10.12.1981.
The plaintiff appellant yet further averred that on 06.05.1979, he served a numberice on the defendant respondent for obtaining permission from the Ceiling Authorities and for execution of the sale deed to which, the defendant respondent sent a reply dated 06.07.1979 stating ignorance about the agreement and sought a companyy thereof for proper reply while alleging that his signatures were obtained on some papers in relation to a suit filed by the State Bank of India.
Whether the agreement is forged as alleged?
15,000/ was paid as earnest money while the remaining amount was payable at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed.
As per the law applicable at the relevant point of time, the said first appeal was filed in the High Court and the plaintiff, while appearing in the said appeal as respondent, moved an application seeking leave to amend the plaint whereupon, the High Court passed the order dated 29.07.1982 that the application for amendment would be decided at the time of final hearing of the appeal.
Dinesh Maheshwari, J. The appellant herein since deceased and represented by his legal representatives had filed the suit for specific performance of Agreement to Sell, being O.S. No.
Briefly put, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that on 13.08.1979, the plaintiff appellant filed the suit aforesaid with the averments that the defendant respondent had executed an agreement dated 16/17.04.1975 in his favour for sale of the property in question, being House Number 102 at Faithful Ganj, Kanpur Nagar, for a companysideration of Rs.
However, the decree so passed by the Trial Court was reversed by the Court of IX Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in its judgment and decree dated 03.07.1995 in Appeal No.54 of 1982, essentially on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to aver and prove his companytinuous readiness and willingness to perform Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by his part of the companytract.
