PRAFULLA KUMAR MAITY Vs. SHRIHARI PRADHAN & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave is granted to Mr. Giri, learned advocate appearing for the appellant to rectify the defect in the memorandum of appeal in terms of the report of the Additional Stamp Reporter. This second appeal is directed against a judgement and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Contai on 25th April, 2012 in Title Appeal No. 3 of 2008 affirming the judgement and decree dated 30th April, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Additional Court, Contai in Title Suit No. 121 of 1992 at the instance of the plaintiff/appellant. Let us now consider as to whether any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff/appellant has filed a suit for declaration of his tenancy right, permanent injunction and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit property. Alternatively he claimed for specific performance of contract which he allegedly entered into with the defendant no.1 for purchase of the suit property for a consideration of rupees fifty thousand. He also claimed that in the event, the decree for specific performance of contract as prayed for cannot be granted, then alternatively decree may be passed for refund of the earnest money of Rs.17,100/-.

(3.) Thus, in substance, the plaintiff claimed that he was a tenant in respect of the suit property under the defendant no.1. While the plaintiff was in possession of the suit premises as a tenant thereof, the plaintiff allegedly entered into an agreement for sale with the defendant no.1 for purchasing the suit property for a consideration of rupees fifty thousand. He further claims that at the time of entering into such agreement for sale, he paid a sum of Rs.101/- as earnest money. The agreement was reduced into writing on a plain piece of paper and the same was signed by the plaintiff and the defendant no.1.