SC sets aside judgments in agricultural land sale case citing fraudulent agreement and concocted evidence

The SC allowed an appeal in a specific performance suit involving agricultural land sale. The respondent-plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement to sell 30 Kanals 8 Marlas at Rs.5,00,000/- per Killa, claiming payment of Rs.16,00,000/- earnest money. The SC found the agreement fraudulent, noting it was prepared on blank stamp paper with pre-obtained thumb impressions, significant blank spaces on unsigned pages, below-market pricing, and improbable circumstances of a Police Constable paying such amount without departmental permission. The SC concluded the entire case was fraud and concoction, setting aside the trial court, first appellate court, and HC judgments as perverse.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to specific performance of the agreement.
2. Entitlement to alternative relief of recovery of earnest money and damages.
3. Validity of the agreement due to allegations of fraud and misrepresentation.
4. Non-joinder of necessary parties.
5. Maintainability of the suit.
6. Locus standi of the plaintiff.
7. Cause of action for filing the suit.
8. Plaintiff's conduct and estoppel.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Specific Performance of the Agreement:
The trial court, first appellate court, and high court denied the respondent-plaintiff's claim for specific performance of the agreement to sell the agricultural land. The trial court found that the transaction appeared to be a loan rather than a sale, noting that the possession of the land was not handed over to the respondent-plaintiff, which contradicted the agreement's terms. The court also highlighted the improbability of the respondent-plaintiff waiting for over a year for the sale deed execution without taking possession.

2. Entitlement to Alternative Relief of Recovery of Earnest Money and Damages:
The trial court partially allowed the alternative relief, directing the appellant-defendant to refund the earnest money of Rs. 16,00,000/- with interest. This decision was upheld by the first appellate court and the high court. The courts concluded that the respondent-plaintiff was entitled to recover the earnest money as the appellant-defendant failed to execute the sale deed.

3. Validity of the Agreement Due to Allegations of Fraud and Misrepresentation:
The appellant-defendant alleged that the agreement was fraudulent, created through misrepresentation and deceit by the respondent-plaintiff, who was a police constable. The appellant-defendant claimed that his thumb impression was taken on blank stamp papers, which were later used to prepare the agreement. The Supreme Court found merit in these allegations, noting significant blank spaces in the agreement and the absence of signatures on the first two pages, suggesting that the agreement could have been prepared on blank papers.

4. Non-joinder of Necessary Parties:
The appellant-defendant argued that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as all co-sharers of the land were not included. The trial court did not find this argument sufficient to dismiss the suit.

5. Maintainability of the Suit:
The trial court found the suit maintainable. However, the Supreme Court noted that the respondent-plaintiff, being a government employee, did not obtain necessary departmental permission to enter into such a high-value transaction, which raised questions on the suit's maintainability.

6. Locus Standi of the Plaintiff:
The trial court affirmed the respondent-plaintiff's locus standi. However, the Supreme Court questioned the legitimacy of the plaintiff's claim, given the suspicious nature of the agreement and the lack of departmental permission.

7. Cause of Action for Filing the Suit:
The trial court found that the cause of action arose when the appellant-defendant failed to appear for the sale deed execution. The Supreme Court, however, found the respondent-plaintiff's actions and the timeline suspicious, undermining the cause of action.

8. Plaintiff's Conduct and Estoppel:
The appellant-defendant argued that the plaintiff was estopped by his conduct from filing the suit. The Supreme Court found that the plaintiff's conduct, including not showing the transaction in income tax returns and not obtaining departmental permission, discredited his claims.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found the judgments of the lower courts to be perverse and based on misreading of evidence. It concluded that the agreement was likely prepared fraudulently on blank stamp papers, and the respondent-plaintiff's claims were not credible. The appeal was allowed, and the judgments of the lower courts were quashed, with no order as to costs.

---