VIJAY KUMAR OJHA Vs. SUSHILA YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2010 passed by learned 9th Additional District Judge (FTC), Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 01- A/2010, whereby the suit filed by appellants/plaintiffs for Specific Performance herein was dismissed by the learned trial Court.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, appellants/ plaintiffs filed Civil Suit No. 01-A/2010 for Specific Performance of the contract for execution of sale-deed of 30 decimal disputed land of Khasra No. 835/1 of total area 0.34 acre which is situated at Tifra, P.H. No. 23 R.C. Bilaspur, Tahsil and District-Bilaspur. At the time of execution of agreement, Ramawadh Yadav was the owner of the suit land, who executed an agreement of sale and received Rs. 80,000/- in cash in lieu of the said agreement on 04.05.2006, and also delivered the possession of the suit land to the appellants on the date of the agreement, but the Ramawadh could not execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs. So, appellants/plaintiffs sent the registered notice on 06.09.2006. After receiving the said notice, Ramawadh again assured in writing on 24.12.2006 that he will execute the sale-deed of suit land till 29.12.2006. The appellants/plaintiffs were remained present with the balance amount of the agreement in the Bilaspur registry office but the Ramawadh Yadav did not come there for execution of sale-deed. Thereafter, the appellants/plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, Ramawadh died, therefore, his legal heirs defendant/respondents No. 1 to 4 were implicated as necessary party, but after service of summons they were also remained ex-parte in the suit. It is alleged that the legal heirs of the Ramawadh Yadav are trying to sale the suit land to some other, and therefore, suit for specific performance is instituted on 17.12.2009 before the trial Court. The defendant/respondents No. 1 to 4 did not appear before the trial Court even after service of notice through news-paper publication, but the learned trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. Hence, this appeal filed by the appellants/plaintiffs.

(3.) Appellants filed I.A. No. 4/2021 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC an application for taking documents on record.