Page 1

1

                        REPORTABLE   

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

  CIVIL APPEAL NO.1672 OF 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.38616 of 2012)

DHEERAJ DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED Appellant(s)

       Versus

DR. OM PRAKASH GUPTA AND OTHERS Respondent(s)

W I T H

   CIVIL APPEAL NO.1673 OF 2016  (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.39155 of 2012)

KAILASH AGARWAL AND OTHERS  Appellant(s) Versus

OM PRAKASH GUPTA AND OTHERS  Respondent(s)

  CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1674-1675 OF 2016      (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.34813-34814 of 2014)

ANURADHA AGRAWAL Appellant(s) Versus

OM PRAKASH AND OTHERS Respondent(s)

     J U D G M E N T  

KURIAN, J.

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Page 2

2

2. Delay condoned.

3. Leave granted.

4. By the impugned judgment, the High Court in First  Appeal, against the judgment dated 8th April, 2005 in  Civil Suit No. 93A/1996 (renumbered Civil Suit No.  20A/2001; 6A/2003) on the file of the VIII Additional  District  Judge,  Gwalior,  reversed  the  decree  for  specific performance.

5. The  Trial  Court  had  framed  the  following  issues :-

S.No                 ISSUE    CONCLUSION 1. Whether defendant No.1 executed agreement  

to  sell  of  suit  land  in  favour  of  plaintiffs in the year 1975?

Unproved

2. Whether defendant No.1 had executed fresh  agreement to sell of suit land in favour  of  plaintiffs  on  15.1.1989  as  prices  of  suit  land  had  risen  and  a  mutual  compromise had arrived between plaintiffs  and defendant No.1?

Unproved

3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to get the  sale  deed  of  suitland  5  Bigha  having  satiated the sum of Rs. Two lakh Eighteen  thousand  to  defendant  No.1  according  to  the agreement to sell dated 15.01.1989 and  to get the vacant possession of suit land?

No

4. Whether suitland is government land due to  which plaintiffs have not got the right to  sell/transfer the same?

Unproved

5. Whether  plaintiffs  did  not  issue  notice Suit  was

Page 3

3

under  Section  CPC  to  defendant  No.2?  If  yes, then its effect?

instituted  having  obtained  permission  from  the Court.

6. Whether  defendants  Nos.  3  to  11  are  bonafide purchasers of suitland? If yes,  then its effect?

Proved. Plaintiffs are not  entitled  to  get  the relief sought.

7. Whether  plaintiffs  have  undervalued  the  suit  land  have  satiated  deficient  court  fee? If yes, then its effect?

No

8. Relief and cost? Suit dismissed.

Additional issue :

9. Whether an order dated 24.01.1996 passed  in the suit No. 41A/95 bears the effect of  res judicata in this case? If yes, then  its effect?

No

All  the  issues  were  answered  against  the  plaintiffs.

6.  On re-appraisal of the evidence, the High Court  took  the  view  that  Exhibit  P-1  was  genuine  and  therefore, decreed the suit.  It will be appropriate  to incorporate herein the following paragraph as also  the decreetal portion of the impugned judgment passed  by the High Court :-  

“21.  Learned counsel for the respondents  have  pointed  during  argument  that  agreement  Exhibit  P-1  is  a  suspicious  document  looking  to  the  other  agreement  Exhibit D-13 in which rate of suit land  has  been  mentioned  as  2.50  rupees  per

Page 4

4

square ft.  But this agreement has been  written  on  plain  paper  that  put  on  15.01.1989  and  not  signed  by  consenting  parties  who  have  signed  the  agreement  Exhibit P-1 on the same day.  Therefore,  in  the  absence  of  signatures  of  any  witness  or  consenting  party  agreement  Exhibit D-13 cannot be relied, even the  agreement Exhibit P-1 which is signed not  only  by  the  parties  but  also  by  the  witnesses and family members of defendant  No.1 who have given their consent for the  agreement.  Learned counsel appearing for  the respondents have also raised certain  objections for disbelieving the agreement  Exhibit P-1 but considering the fact that  by Exhibit D-10, defendant No.1 Harcharan  Singh  has  admitted  the  execution  of  agreement  Exhibit  P-1  and  even  after  admission  and  having  knowledge  about  document Exhibit P-1 he has not taken any  step  against  the  appellants  for  fabrication of document Exhibit P-1.  This  fact  along  with  admission  of  defendant  No.1 shows that agreement Exhibit P-1 is a  genuine  document.   It  cannot  be  disbelieved on the ground that notice in  the paper regarding agreement mentioning  different  date  of  agreement  as  the  execution  and  contents  of  agreement  Exhibit P-1 has been admitted by defendant  No.1 in Exhibit D-10, therefore, evidence  against  such  admission  before  the  trial  Court which contained detailed postmortem  of  agreement  Exhibit  P-1  on  several  grounds cannot be confirmed looking to the  admission of defendant No.1 in Exhibit D- 10  which  has  not  been  considered  by  learned trial Court while doing microscope  surgery of the agreement Exhibit P-1.” “24. Therefore, the judgment passed by the  learned  trial  Court  is  hereby  set-aside  and the appeal filed by the appellant is  hereby allowed.  The suit filed before the  learned trial Court is allowed in favour  of sole appellant Dr. Om Prakash Gupta as  under :-

(A) Respondent/defendant  No.1  is directed to execute the sale- deed of 5 bighas of land Survey  No.  792/3-4  according  to

Page 5

5

agreement dated 15.01.1989 after  taking  consideration  of  Rs.2,18,000/-  @  Rs.2/-  per  swuare  ft.  (according  to  agreement)  and  hand  over  the  vacant possession of the above  land to the plaintiff/appellant  Dr. Om Prakash Gupta.  If the  defendant No.1 fails to execute  the  sale  deed  within  30  days  after  deposit  of  payment  of  consideration amount to him or  to deposit in the trial Court,  the  trial  Court  shall  execute  the  sale  deed  in  favour  of  appellant/plaintiff  Dr.  O.P.  Gupta. (B) Since  sale  deed  of  above  mentioned  suit  land  have  been  executed  by  defendant  No.1  during pendency of the suit and  purchasers  are  not  bonafide  purchasers, therefore, the sale  deed  by  law  executed  by  defendant  No.1  in  favour  of  respondent Nos. 2, 3 to 11 are  hereby declared null and void. (C) The  respondent  No.1  shall  pay  the  cost  of  appellant  and  the respondents shall bear their  own cost. (D) Counsel  fee  be  calculated  according to the rules if pre- certified.”

7. We have referred to the factual matrix only to a  very  limited  extent  for  the  reason  that  the  High  Court apparently has gone wrong in decreeing the suit  only on the basis of the finding on genuineness of  Exhibit P-1 document.  It should have been borne in  mind  that  suit  was  for  specific  performance  and  obviously there were also several other aspects of

Page 6

6

the  matter  including  the  aspect  of  readiness  and  willingness which required consideration by the High  Court.  

8. In  that  view  of  the  matter,  we  allow  these  appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and remit  the First Appeal No. 174 of 2005 to the High Court.

9. Needless  to  say  that  the  appeal(s)  are  to  be  heard  afresh.   The  parties  are  free  to  urge  all  available  contentions  under  law,  before  the  High  Court.

10. It is made clear that we have not expressed any  opinion  on  the  merits  of  the  case  including  the  validity or genuineness of documents as also on the  readiness and willingness aspect and it is for the  High Court to consider all those aspects.

11. No order as to costs.

            ........................J.                       (KURIAN JOSEPH)

                 ........................J.                     (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN)

New Delhi, February 23, 2016