9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 885X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard the arguments of the parties counsel and have gone through the record. 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiffs are said to have entered into an agreement with Indra Vikram Singh for sale of 'Bhurnidhar' plots with regard to 1/4th of his share and for this ₹ 1200/- were given by the plaintiffs-appellants to Indra Vikram Singh (defendant No. 1) in the village itself and ₹ 2800/- were given by the plaintiffs appellants to defendant No. 1 on 6-1-1982 when an agreement for execution of the sale deed was got registered. It is alleged that the plots were agreed to be sold by the plaintiffs-appellants to the defendant No. 1 for ₹ 8000/- and the plaintiffs appellants had paid in all ₹ 4000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat he had very intimate terms with Ram Nath (plaintiff-appellant No. 2) and he used to offer him liquor and 'Bhang' and was under control and so when he had come along with the plaintiffs-appellants to see picture at district Hardoi and he was given intoxicants by the plaintiffs-appellants and at that time they got his signatures as a witness in one agreement set up by the plaintiffs-appellants and in that capacity he also signed before the Sub-Registrar. He also alleged that no such agreement dated 6-1-1982 was entered into by him with the plaintiffs-appellants and it is fraudulent. He also alleged that the plaintiffs-appellants had full knowledge of the agreement dated 30-11-1981 having been executed by him in favour of the respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Where two documents are executed on the same day, the time of their execution would determine the priority irrespective of the time of their registration. The one which is executed earlier in time will prevail over the other executed subsequently as has been held in the ruling reported in 2002 (93) R. D. 280 : (AIR 2002 SC 959), Gurbax Singh v. Kartar Singh. Both the legal questions formulated above are answered in negative. 9. The findings recorded by the learned lower appellate court is based on evidence on record and the same do not call for any interference by this Court. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ruling reported in (1999)3 SCC 722 : (AIR 1999 SC 2213) Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
