SUDHA SHANKAR AND PREM SHANKAR Vs. JAGDISH LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 14.4.1977 whereby their First Appeal No. 137 of 1974 was dismissed.

(2.) The appellants were the defendants of the first set in Original Suit No. 234 of 1971 which was filed by the plaintiff-respondents for the specific performance of the agreement dated 1.7.1968 followed by an additional agreement (Tltamma) dated 24.10.1968 for sale of the properties covered by the agreement. The appellants as defendants contested the suit on verity of grounds. After due contest, the suit for the relief of specific performance was decreed against the present appellants on 21.2.1974. The operative portion of the order of the trial court and as affirmed in the First Appeal No. 137 of 1974 runs as follows : "The plaintiffs" suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 1.7.68 and agreement for sale 'titimma satta' dated 24.10.68 and agreement dated 19.11.68 directing the defendants not to execute sale deed in respect of the entire property shown under schedule 'Ka' and to extent of their share in the property shown under schedule 'Kha' and 'Chha' to the extent of 1/4 share in the property shown under schedule 'Ga' in accordance with the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreements for sale ; and for directing the defendant 1 set to obtain Bhumidhari certificate in respect of the plots (property) shown under schedule 'Cha' to the extent of their 3/4 share ; to the extent of 1/2 share in the plots shown under schedule 'Aunga' and to the extent of their 1/3 share in the plots shown under schedule 'Cha' after depositing the requisite rent in respect thereof and thereafter for executing sale deed in respect of the properties in suit as detailed and bounded at the foot of the plaint ; by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs after receiving the remaining sum of Rs. 13,000 as specified in the said agreement dated 1.7.68. 24.10.68 and 19.11.68 is hereby decreed with costs against the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to obtain bhumidhari certificates in respect of the aforesaid sirdari Plots to the extent of their respective shares therein, as specified above, within a period of two months and to execute the sale deed in respect of the properties in suit in favour of the plaintiffs to the extent of their respective shares in the respective propertes as specified above after receiving the remaining consideration of Rs. 13,000 from the plaintiffs within a period of two months from the date of the judgment falling which the same shall be done at the expenses of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 through the Court." The properties which are subject matter of the agreement for sale are situate in two different villages, namely, Mureri and Neema, Pargana Katehar district Varansi. After the execution of the agreement and before filing of the original suit for specific performance, these two villages came under the consolidation operations as envisaged under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). After protracted proceedings, resulting in disposal of appeals, revisions, etc., the consolidation operations came to be denotified under Section 52 of the Act during the pendency of the present second appeal. During the pendency of this appeal, a number of documents were sought to be filed along with an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to depict the position that on account of the consolidation operations, the appellants were deprived of their original holdings and were left with a small area of the old plots. On behalf of the plaintiff-respondents, objection had been filed against the application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The consideration of the said application was deferred and is to be decided along with this judgment.

(3.) Heard Sri Ashok Bhushan, learned count:! for the defendant-appellants as well as Sri S.N. Singh appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents, at considerable length.