9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (2) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was married in village Quasba Maker he used to visit that village from time to time and during visits he picked out acquaintance with Ramyaad Singh. The plaintiff pleaded that in the year 1969 Ramyaad Singh was in need of money and he was unable to manage the amount without disposing of some of his lands and, therefore, he negotiated with the plaintiff for the sale of one bigha of his land to the plaintiff for a sum of ₹ 6,000/-. According to the plaintiff, the negotiation was finalised and the plaintiff claimed to have advanced a sum of ₹ 4,000/- to Ramyaad Singh by way of earnest money on 16-6-1969 on which date, according to the plaintiff, Ramyaad Singh executed a deed of agreement in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The suit was contested only by defendant 3. This defendant 3 (contesting defendant) claimed to have purchased the suit land, along with some other lands, from Ramyaad Singh by virtue of four sale deeds dated 11-8-1969 for ₹ 2,000/-each. The defence was that he was a bona fide purchaser of the suit land for value without notice of any earlier contract for sale. The contesting defendant asserted that he was in no way affected by any deed of agreement entered into by Ramyaad Singh with the plaintiff and he further contended that the deed of agreement relied upon by the plaintiff was a forged and fabricated document created on an ante-dated stamp in order to defeat his title based on the aforesaid sale deeds. According to the contesting d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and this defendant 3 had no prior knowledge of the alleged Mahadnama. It further held that defendant 3 came in possession of the lands in suit after the purchase. It further held that the delay in filing the suit (i. e. after two years of the execution of the alleged Mahadnama) was also one of the factors against the plaintiff. On these findings the court of appeal below, as stated above, dismissed the appeal. 7. Thus, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has contended firstly, that the courts below misplaced the onus of proof upon the plaintiff and it was contended that the onus was upon the contesting defendant to prove that he had no knowledge of the prior contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roving a subsequent bona fide transfer for value without notice lies on the party alleging it. This is the settled law but it is also well settled that very little evidence, and in certain circumstances a mere denial, regarding want of knowledge of the plaintiff's contract would discharge this onus and shift the onus upon the plaintiff. Reference be made to the case of Ramdeni Singh v. Gumani Raut (AIR 1929 Pat 300). 8. In view of the aforesaid settled view of law it is to be seen whether the Courts below have rightly thrown the onus, in the instant case, upon the plaintiff. 9. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant placed paragraph 7 of the plaint in support of his contention that the plaintiff pleaded knowledge on the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt. It is pertinent to quote the relevant lines from paras 6 and 9 of the written statement: 6. Mudai ne kabhi koi jayadad mauja kasba Maker me hasil nahi kiya hai wo ne koi jarpesagi hee mauja kasba maker se likhawaya hai. Tahat ilam man mudalah mudai ko koi bhi aawakat baya ya jarpesagi likhane ka nahi hai , 9. Dapha majkur me kathit mahadanama ke tahrir ka wakhat man mudalah ki mawjudgai ka jhutha beyan sirph man mudalah par kathit mahadanama ka knowledge fasten karna ke Jiye kiya gaya hai . The contesting defendant has examined himself as D. W. 4 and has categorically denied knowledge of the alleged Mahadnama and has deposed as follows : Aisi baat sachcha nahi hai ki kathit mahda mere hee samakch likha gaya tha . 10. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case, the Mahadnama in question was executed on 16-6-1969 and the sale deeds in favour of the contesting defendants are dated 11-8-1969 and the suit has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant on 3-8-1971. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has drawn my attention to Article 54, Limitation Act, which prescribes three years for a suit for specific performance of a contract. According to Article 54, Limitation-Act, the suit can be filed within three years from the date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has noticed that performance is refused. In the present case, admittedly there is no date fixed for performance of a contract and hence the suit for specific performance of a cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
