MUJTRI MAHATANI Vs. GHOSAL KAIBARTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE palintiff has alleged that the disputed tank and its bank belonged to the defendant Gobardhan Mahato. On the 3rd September, 1965, the latter executed a deed of agreement in his favour contracting to sell the disputed property to him for Rs. 1,000/- within chaitra, 1374 B. S. and took an earnest money of Rs. 700/ -. But he declined to execute a kobala He fraudulently transferred the property to the defendants nos. 2 and 3. Those two defendants were aware of such agreement made with him. Hence the defendants nos. 2 and 3 are bound by the agreement entered into with the plaintiff. The suit is for specific performance of contract. There is an alternative prayer for recovery if Rs. 1,000/- as damages.

(2.) THE defendant no1 died during the pendency of the suit and his heirs were brought on the record. The defendants filed a written statement denying the story of such agreement It has been stated that the defendants no. 2 and 3 are bonafide purchasers for value without notice of the plaintiff's alleged agreement.

(3.) THE learned Munsif considered the matter accepted the plaintiffs version and decreed the suit. He took care to state that in case the Deputy Comomissioner, Puralia, did not accord permission to sell the property, the plaintiff would get Rs. 1,000/- as damages.