BABAJI CHARAN SAHU Vs. RAJENDRA NARAYAN DASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal heirs and successors of the original plaintiff Nityananda Sahu in Title Suit No. 163 of 1969 instituted in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 8th September, 1988 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No. 188 of 1974.

(2.) The suit was mainly for specific performance of contract with a prayer to direct the defendants to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property In favour of the plaintiff within the date specified by the Court and to deliver possession of the same as well as for other ancillary reliefs.

(3.) The suit property is a two-storeyed pucca building having fourteen rooms appeartaining to Khata No. 779 and Khata No. 780 measuring Ac. 0. 201 decimals comprising of plot No. 2816 having Ac. 0. 157 decimals and plot No. 2819 having an area of Ac. 0.044 decimals, in toto Ac. 0.201 decimals situated at Mouza Patpur, Chowdhury Bazar, P. S. Lalbag, Sub-registry of Cuttack Sadar, District -Cuttack. The averments of the plaint revealed that the suit property was the residential building of one Balakrushna Das. Balakrushna expired leaving two sons, namely, Rajakrushna and Girish Chandra. Girish Chandra unfortunately died leaving behind defendant Nos. 1 to 5 as his legal heirs and successors. Litigation cropped up with regard to the joint family properties including the disputed property between the legal heirs of Balakrushna and the same was carried upto the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal. While the matter was pending in the Superme Court, the defendants in order to meet the litigation expenses and other legal necessities, agreed to alienate the suit property in favour of the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 10,000.00 and received an advance of Rs. 4,000.00 towards consideration and an agreement was executed between the parties. It was alleged that the defendants thereafter also received some amounts towards consideration. Even after disposal of the Civil Appeal, the defendants failed to perform their part of contract though the plaintiff was ready and willing, and adopted dilatory tactics on some pretext or other. After serving legal notice, the plaintiff was constrained to file the Title Suit.