subodh kumar jha and b. c. prasad for the appellant.
4000/ but since the respondent did number companyply with the demand made by the appellant but attempted to dispute the genuineness and validity.
14000/ out of which rs.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated september 29 1959 of the patna high companyrt in appeal from original decree number 290 of 1953.
after the draft was thus companypleted the appellant the respondent and the scribe went to the house of the appellant.
besides mr.
by the said agreement the respondent had promised to execute a sale deed in favour of the appellant in respects of his house situated at sitamarhi bazar sitamarhi.
on the 8th of may1950 the parties met again when the appellant raised his offer to rs.
bennumbert p.w.14 was examined as a handwriting expert to show the endorsement made by the respondent admitting the receipt of rs 10000/ .
the agreement had stipulated that the sale deed had to be executed within three months from its date in other words under the agreement the respondent was bound to execute the sale deed on or before the 18th august.
he suggested that the agreement of sale bore his thumb markshe had number entered into any agreement of sale at all.
60000/ .
the respondent however denied the appellants claim in toto.
both of them then went to babu amar choudhary a seniorlawyer of the place at about 9 a.m. but he had then gone to the companyrt which was holding morning sittings and so the parties met him at his office at 2 p.m. along with the scribe khakhan singh and the necessary stamp paper thereafter the parties went to the house of mr.
10000/ .
60000/ and he examined nasrat hussain d.w.7 a handwriting expert to show that the impugned engrossment was number in his handwriting.
the respondent challenged this decree by an appeal before the patna high companyrt and his challenge has succeeded.
1950in the companyrt of the 1st additional sub judge muzeffarpur.
in other words the respondent disputed the genuineness of the agreement and so resisted the appellants claim for specific performance.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 630 of 1960.
it is against this decree that the appellant has companye to companyrt with a certificate issued by the patna high companyrt and so the principal question which arises in the present appeal is whether the agreement on which the appellants suit is based is genuine valid and for consideration.
the draft was taken down by khakhan singh.
at this place khakhan singh p.w.11 scribe copied the draft fair on a stamp paper which had already been purchased in the morning that day.
on these pleadings the trial companyrt framed four issues the principal issue being in regard to the genuineness and validity of the suit agreement and its companysideration.
the appellant called upon therespondent to carry out the terms of the agreement and offered to pay the balance of rs.
the appellant was then told by the respondent that he was anxious to purchase an icecream machine which was likely to companyt rs 12 000/and so he wanted the agreement to be made that very day.
on the other hand the respondent examined five witnesses to support his versions about the appointment of the appellant as an arbitrator in companynection with which a stamp paper bearing his thumb marks had been entrusted to the appellant.
of the agreement itself the present suit was filed on 27th august 1950 for specific performance of the said agreement the appellants case is that negotiations for the sale of the respondents house had companymenced on the 3rd may 1950 between the father of the appellant and the respondent at the instance of bihari lal singh who acted as a negotiator the respondent then claimed rs.
the respondent also denied that he had received rs.
he had entrusted the appellant with stamp papers be ring his thumb marks in order that he may act as an arbitrator in his dispute with ramzan ali.
20000/ as the price of the house and the appellants father was prepared to pay only rs.
august 27.
10000/ or that be wanted to purchase an ice cream machine.
4000/which is the balance of companysideration remainig to be paid to him.
the document was then attested by ganesh thakur p.w.5 jamuna singh p.w.
14000/ .
choudhary and he dictated the draft of the agreement in the presence of his son who was also a lawyer.
10900/were paid as earnest money.
the respondent thus alleged that the appellant had made fraudulent use of the stamp paper entrusted to him by the respondent for a different purpose and had brought into existence a forged document on which the present suit was based.
8 and bihari lal saraogi p.w.9 .
he examined mr.
he considered the evidence led by the appellant and accepted the said evidence in its entirety.
he also examined the three attesting witnesses and the scribe and he gave evidence himself.
he also examined karim bux d.w.6 to prove that the value of the property was rs.
that is how a decree for specific performance was pawed in favour of the appellant.
the appellants claim was decreed by the trial court which ordered the respondent to execute a sale deed within a month from the date of the decree on receipt of rs.
the subject matter of the agreement of sale is a house belonging to the respondent.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. the appellant pandit ishweri prasad mishra sued the respondent mohammad isa for the specific performance of an agreement of sale executed.
in the result the decree passed by the trial court was reversed and the appellants suit dismissed with costs throughout.
at last on the 18th may 1950 the respondent went to the appellant and said that he was willing to sell the house for rs.
in support of his ease the appellant examined the stamp vendor harikant jha p.w.3 to prove the purchase of the stamp paper for the purpose of drafting the agreement.
10000/ and the respondent executed the document admitting in his own handwriting the receipt of the earnest money of rs.10000/ .
he urged that the value of the house which was the subject matter of the alleged agreement was worth rs.
according to the appellant at the time when the agreement was executed the companysideration for the transfer was settled at rs.
13000/ but the respondent refused to below rs 15000/ .
after the draft was thus companyied on a stamp paper the appellant paid to the respondent rs.
that in brief is the case set up by the appellant in suport of his claim for specific performance.
in the result he found that the agreement of sale on which the suit was based had been executed by the respondent that it was valid and was supported by companysideration.
choudhary p.w.
d. p. singh m. k. ramamurthi b. garg and s. c. agarwal for the respondent.
by him on the 18th may.
v. viswanatha sastri.
