RADHA SINGH Vs. MADHUSUDAN TULSYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 96 of the CPC, the appellant / plaintiff has filed this first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC, calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment & decree dated 4-8-2018 passed by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Baikunthpur, in Civil Suit No.3-A/2016, by which the trial Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff herein answering preliminary question No.6 holding that the plaintiff's suit is barred by Section 34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act , 2002 (for short, 'the SARFAESI Act '). [Parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status shown and ranking given in the plaint before the trial Court.]

(2.) The plaintiff herein filed a suit for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction with regard to the suit property shown in Schedule-A of the plaint stating inter alia that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 & 2 have entered into agreement to sale for the said suit land on a cash consideration of ? 5,50,000/- and ? 2,00,000/- and on 30-8-2010, defendants No.1 and 2 obtained ? 50,000/- and ? 50,000/- and executed the agreement to sale in favour of the plaintiff, but they failed to perform their part of contract, though the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of contract and therefore appropriate decree be granted directing defendants No.1 & 2 to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) Defendants No.1 and 2 filed their written statement and admitted the fact of having obtained ? 50,000/- and ? 50,000/- towards advance amount for the sale of land in favour of the plaintiff, but further pleaded that the plaintiff did not make payment of remaining amount and therefore possession could not be delivered.