to receive an unregistered agreement of sale dated 21-04-2002 and I.A.No.355 of 2012 to recallPW-1 for the purpose of marking that unregistered agreement of sale. = ought to have received the agreement of sale and recalled PW-1 for marking the document. In fact in the plaint in O.S.No.234 of 2007 it is stated that there is an agreement of sale dated 21-04-2002 without specifically mentioning that it is an oral sale agreement. However when the document is sought to be received, the same can be received subject to the circumstances enumerated. When it is not stated in the plaint in O.S.No.234 of 2007 that there was oral agreement entered into in respect of the property scheduled therein, it may be difficult to say that there was only oral agreement of sale. Apart from that the plea of the plaintiffs’ counsel that by mistake in the other suit (O.S.No.525 of 2005) it was mentioned as oral agreement of sale may also be looked into. However even otherwise though contradictory statements are taken it is necessary to give opportunity to the party to mark the document and prove his claim. The matter is to be examined in a broader perspective and in the interest of justice.


HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
C.R.P.Nos. 13 of 2013 and 6450 of 2012
COMMON ORDER:
In these Civil Revision Petitions (C.R.Ps), common question of law and facts are involved and the parties are also common, hence they are being disposed of by this common order.
These CRPs are directed against common order dated
08-08-2012 passed in I.A.Nos.354 of 2012 and 355 of 2012 respectively in O.S.No.234 of 2007 on the file of the Court of
IX Additional District Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam (IAs).
The petitioners herein are also the petitioners in the IAs and plaintiffs in the suit whereas the respondents herein are also the respondents in the IAs and defendants in the suit.
For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in the suit.
The plaintiffs filed the suit for cancellation of a sale deed said to be executed by the defendants in favour of a third party.  They filed I.A.No.354 of 2012 to receive an unregistered agreement of sale dated 21-04-2002 and I.A.No.355 of 2012 to recallPW-1 for the purpose of marking that unregistered agreement of sale.  The Court below after hearing the parties dismissed the IAson the ground that in another suit (O.S.No.525 of 2005) filed by the second defendant the plea of oral agreement of sale was taken by the plaintiffs in respect of the same property which is contrary to the plea taken in the present suit (O.S.No.234 of 2007), aggrieved by which the present CRPs have been filed.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has contended that in the plaint filed in the present suit (O.S.No.234 of 2007) it is clearly recited that there was an agreement of sale and by mistake in the other suit (O.S.No.525 of 2005) it was mentioned that there was only oral agreement of sale.  Therefore, the Court below 
ought to have received the agreement of sale and recalled PW-1 for marking the document.  
In fact in the plaint in O.S.No.234 of 2007 it is stated that there is an agreement of sale dated 21-04-2002 without specifically mentioning that it is an oral sale agreement. However when the document is sought to be received, the same can be received subject to the circumstances enumerated.  When it is not stated in the plaint in O.S.No.234 of 2007 that there was oral agreement entered into in respect of the property scheduled therein, it may be difficult to say that there was only oral agreement of sale.  Apart from that the plea of the plaintiffs’ counsel that by mistake in the other suit (O.S.No.525 of 2005) it was mentioned as oral agreement of sale may also be looked into.  However even otherwise though contradictory statements are taken it is necessary to give opportunity to the party to mark the document and prove his claim. The matter is to be examined in a broader perspective and in the interest of justice.  Otherwise injustice may be done to him.  In these circumstances, I feel that the orders of the Court below rejecting to receive the document are not proper. 
Hence, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed.
The impugned orders are set aside directing the Court below to receive the agreement of sale dated 21-04-2002 and to mark it by recalling PW-1 for that purpose.   However the genuineness of the document is to be decided taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.  No costs.

_________________________
G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J
Date: 04-01-2013
YCR

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515