ASHISH KUMAR Vs. RUKMANI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff. this Court vide order dated 01.5.2009 while admitting the appeal had formulated following substantial questions of law:-

(2.) The defendant No. 1 filed written statement in which, inter alia, it was pleaded that agreement was executed by way of security for loan. It was further pleaded that plaintiff was never placed in possession of the suit plot and the possession of the suit plot continued with the defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 executed the sale deeds on 16.1.2001 and 17.1.2001 in favour of defendants No. 2 to 4 had handed-over possession to them. It was further pleaded that market value of the suit plot was Rs. 30/- per sq.ft. and, therefore, the question of selling the same for Rs. 15,000/- does not arise. It was further held that defendant No. 1 sold the plot for a consideration of Rs. 1.28 lacs. It was further pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation. The defendants No. 2 to 4 filed their written statement in which, inter alia, it was pleaded that defendants No. 2 to 4 had made an enquiry and found out that defendant No. 1 is the owner. They got the plot in question demarcated on 13.1.2001. The defendants No. 2 to 4 are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration without any notice of previous agreement.

(3.) The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.8.2006, inter alia, held that in the sale deed (Exhibit-P-1) no time limit was prescribed for payment of remaining sale consideration. It was further held that execution of the agreement (Exhibit-P-1) was duly proved. However, the defendant No. 1 failed to prove that agreement was executed by way of security for loan. The trial Court further held that there is no plea with regard to readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of the contract in the plaint. It was also held that plaintiff after execution of the agreement did not make any effort to obtain permission from the Gram Panchayat and only sent a notice (Exhibit-P-2) on 21.1.2001. Accordingly, it was held that the plaintiff failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. It was also held that there is no material on record to show that defendants No. 2 to 4 had notice of previous transaction. The trial Court further held that the plaintiffs are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration and that the possession of the plot in question was not handed over to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed.