PARASNATH THAKUR PRASAD Vs. HARI NARAYAN TEWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application in revision has been filed by one of the defendants to a suit for the specific performance of a con tract of sale and also for possession. The applicant and Opposite Party No. 2 entered into a contract of sale of certain agricultural property in favour of opposite-party No. 1. ubsequently, however, they executed a sale-deed in favour of opposite parties Nos. 8 to 5. In the circumstances, opposite-party No. 1 filed a suit for specific per formance of the contract of sale against the applicant and opposite- parties Nos. 2 to 5. In the plaint as originally filed opposite party No. 1 claimed that he had been put in possession also of the property and only a sale-deed remained to be executed by the applicant and opposite-party No. 2 but they executed in favour of Opposite-parties Nos. 3 to 5, after that contract in favour of op posite-party No. 1. Later on, however, a prayer was added in the alternative to the effect that in case the plaintiff-opposite-party No. 1 was not found in possession, possession be also delivered to him of the property in question.

(2.) TWO preliminary points were raised before the learned trial Judge. The first was as to whether the property being agricultural property could a suit for pos session be filed in the Civil Court where it had been filed? The Second point was that the defendant-opposite-party No. 2 be ing a minor on the date of the alleged con tract of sale, the contract could not be enforced as against him. Both the points were decided by the learned Civil Judge before whom the suit was filed, against the defendants who rais ed them and it is in these circumstances that one of the defendants has come up in revision before this Court.

(3.) THE other point raised is that the prayer in the plaint after the amend ment consists of the applicant and opposite party No. 2 being compelled to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-op posite- party No. 1 and in the alternative if the plaintiff-opposite-party No. 1 was not found in possession or the property, to de liver possession of the same to him. So far as the prayer in the plaint for the execu tion of the document in favour of the plaintiff is concerned, it is not contended that such a relief can be granted by the revenue Court but it is contended that the relief for possession can be granted by the revenue court and the revenue court alone and as such the suit ought to have been dismissed so far as the prayer for delivery of possession, was concerned even though it was in the alternative, being allowed to be proceeded with only so far as the pra yer for the applicant and opposite party No. 2 being compelled to execute the sale-deed was concerned.