2017 A.P. Digest - June part
2017 A.P. Digest - June part-1 suit for specific performance - sale agreement is a fabricated one - The Court below took the aid of a magnifying glass to look at the dates, to understand that the sale agreement was brought into existence and is not a genuine one. But even to the naked eye the said dubiety would be evident. The sale agreement, as rightly observed by the Court below, is dated 23.05.1987 whereas the stamp paper was purchased on 27.05.1987. The said inconsistency is insuperable. P.W.1 asserts that the stamp paper was purchased on the date of agreement itself, which is 23rd, whereas the stamp paper bears a glaring date of 27th .- the evidence of the attestors and any one testifying to have been a witness to such agreement, like P.W.6 also would only be nothing but untrustworthy.- no other understanding except that the sale agreement was brought into existence by all concerned, unmind...