Satnam Singh (dead) by LRs. and Others Vs. Sadhu Singh and Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 14137 of 1996
With C.A. No. 14138 of 1996
With C.A. No. 14138 of 1996
Petitioner: Satnam Singh (dead) by LRs. and Others
Respondent: Sadhu Singh and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 14137 of 1996
With C.A. No. 14138 of 1996
With C.A. No. 14138 of 1996
Judges: V. N. KHARE & S. N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 29, 2001
Head Note:
LIMITATION
Limitation Act, 1963
Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell – Agreement on 29-09-81 – Name of vendor noted wrongly – After correction, land agreed to be sold – Such correction took place during consolidation proceeding on 05-09-1983 – Suit filed on 29-03-1986, held to be within time. (Para 3)
Evidence Act, 1872
Section 3 – Appreciation – Suit for specific performance – One of the attesting witnesses got examined during examination-in-chief and died without being cross examined – Other attesting witness and scribe not relied upon as they did not know the parties per-sonally. Held that their evidence on these grounds should not have been rejected. Appeals allowed. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. One Bhagat Singh, son of Sunder Singh, on 29-09-1981, exe-cuted an agreement for sale in respect of 14 marlas of agricul-tural land in favour of Onkar Singh, s/o Bhagat Singh. The said agreement for sale stated that the name of vendor, i.e., Bhagat Singh has been wrongly entered as Bhagat Singh s/o Ram Singh and after correction of his name, he would sell the said land @ Rs. 300/- per marla to Onkar Singh, s/o Bhagat Singh. It is not disputed that, on 05-09-1983, during consolidation proceedings, the Consolidation Officer corrected the name of Bhagat Singh. Thereafter, on 1.9.1985, the plaintiffs approached the vendor for executing the sale deed. However, the vendor – Bhagat Singh, got the name of his grandson mutated in respect of the said plot of land. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs on 29-03-1996, filed a suit for specific performance. The defendants-respondents filed a written statement and one of the pleas taken was that the agreement for sale was not executed by Bhagat Singh as he was literate and always signed the documents and has never put his thumb impression. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Teja Singh, one of the attesting witnesses was examined. Beside Teja Singh, Jagdish Singh Uppal, the scribe who wrote the agreement of sale was also examined . Satnam Singh s/o Onkar Singh was also examined. All these witnesses stated that the agreement, Ex. P-1, was executed in their presence. The defendants did not examine Bhagat Singh and no explanation whatsoever was given why he did not enter into the witness box. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record, decreed the suit. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court. The Appellate Court was of the view that since Teja Singh was not put up for cross-examination, his statement, during the examination-in-chief cannot be relied upon. The First Appellate Court was also of the view that Jagdish Singh Uppal, the scribe, did not know the parties to the agreement, therefore, his evidence is not reli-able. The Appellate Court also found that the suit brought by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation as the plaintiffs were pres-ent on 5-3-1983 when the Consolidation Officer passed the order for correction of the name of Bhagat Singh. Consequently, the appeal filed by the defendants was allowed and the suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs’ second appeal was dismissed by the High Court. It is against the said judgment, these appeals have been preferred before us.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants urged that the view taken by the First Appellate Court and the High Court that agreement for sale was not proved and that the suit brought by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation is patently erroneous. We find substance in the argument.
3. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, it is not disputed that the Consolidation Officer passed the order for correction of name of Bhagat Singh on 5-9-1983 and not on 5-3-1983 as noted by the First Appellate Court. If it is taken that the plaintiffs were present on the said date, i.e., 5-9-1983 the suit filed by them on 29-3-1986, was well within time. We there-fore, find that the view taken by the First Appellate Court and the High Court that the suit was barred by limitation is errone-ous. So far as the question whether the plaintiffs failed to prove the agreement for sale is concerned, the First Appellate Court as well as the High Court rejected the evidence of plain-tiffs on irrelevant ground. It has come on evidence on record that Teja Singh, one of the attesting witnesses, after his exami-nation-in-chief died and therefore, he could not put up for cross-examination. Under such circumstances, the evidence of Teja Singh could not have been excluded. Similarly, the evidence of Jagdish Singh Uppal, the scribe, ought not to have been rejected on the ground that he did not know the parties personally. We are therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court in rejecting the plaintiffs’ evidence was erroneous.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside. We accordingly set aside the judgment under appeal and restore the decree of the trial court with this modification that the plaintiffs appellants shall pay the consid-eration amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondents for the pur-chase of 14 marlas of land.
5. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. One Bhagat Singh, son of Sunder Singh, on 29-09-1981, exe-cuted an agreement for sale in respect of 14 marlas of agricul-tural land in favour of Onkar Singh, s/o Bhagat Singh. The said agreement for sale stated that the name of vendor, i.e., Bhagat Singh has been wrongly entered as Bhagat Singh s/o Ram Singh and after correction of his name, he would sell the said land @ Rs. 300/- per marla to Onkar Singh, s/o Bhagat Singh. It is not disputed that, on 05-09-1983, during consolidation proceedings, the Consolidation Officer corrected the name of Bhagat Singh. Thereafter, on 1.9.1985, the plaintiffs approached the vendor for executing the sale deed. However, the vendor – Bhagat Singh, got the name of his grandson mutated in respect of the said plot of land. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs on 29-03-1996, filed a suit for specific performance. The defendants-respondents filed a written statement and one of the pleas taken was that the agreement for sale was not executed by Bhagat Singh as he was literate and always signed the documents and has never put his thumb impression. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Teja Singh, one of the attesting witnesses was examined. Beside Teja Singh, Jagdish Singh Uppal, the scribe who wrote the agreement of sale was also examined . Satnam Singh s/o Onkar Singh was also examined. All these witnesses stated that the agreement, Ex. P-1, was executed in their presence. The defendants did not examine Bhagat Singh and no explanation whatsoever was given why he did not enter into the witness box. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record, decreed the suit. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred appeal before the First Appellate Court. The Appellate Court was of the view that since Teja Singh was not put up for cross-examination, his statement, during the examination-in-chief cannot be relied upon. The First Appellate Court was also of the view that Jagdish Singh Uppal, the scribe, did not know the parties to the agreement, therefore, his evidence is not reli-able. The Appellate Court also found that the suit brought by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation as the plaintiffs were pres-ent on 5-3-1983 when the Consolidation Officer passed the order for correction of the name of Bhagat Singh. Consequently, the appeal filed by the defendants was allowed and the suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs’ second appeal was dismissed by the High Court. It is against the said judgment, these appeals have been preferred before us.
2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants urged that the view taken by the First Appellate Court and the High Court that agreement for sale was not proved and that the suit brought by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation is patently erroneous. We find substance in the argument.
3. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, it is not disputed that the Consolidation Officer passed the order for correction of name of Bhagat Singh on 5-9-1983 and not on 5-3-1983 as noted by the First Appellate Court. If it is taken that the plaintiffs were present on the said date, i.e., 5-9-1983 the suit filed by them on 29-3-1986, was well within time. We there-fore, find that the view taken by the First Appellate Court and the High Court that the suit was barred by limitation is errone-ous. So far as the question whether the plaintiffs failed to prove the agreement for sale is concerned, the First Appellate Court as well as the High Court rejected the evidence of plain-tiffs on irrelevant ground. It has come on evidence on record that Teja Singh, one of the attesting witnesses, after his exami-nation-in-chief died and therefore, he could not put up for cross-examination. Under such circumstances, the evidence of Teja Singh could not have been excluded. Similarly, the evidence of Jagdish Singh Uppal, the scribe, ought not to have been rejected on the ground that he did not know the parties personally. We are therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court in rejecting the plaintiffs’ evidence was erroneous.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside. We accordingly set aside the judgment under appeal and restore the decree of the trial court with this modification that the plaintiffs appellants shall pay the consid-eration amount of Rs. 50,000/- to the respondents for the pur-chase of 14 marlas of land.
5. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
