BASANTI MOHANTY Vs. BRAHMANAND DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18-8-1983, and consequential decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Jagatsinghpur (as was then designated) in Title Suit No. 61 of 1982, where the reliefs sought for were for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, and in the alternative for recovery of possession.

(2.) Position of the parties in the present appeal vis-a-vis the suit is as follows:Appellant was defendant No. 2 in the suit; respondents 1 to 3 were plaintiffs in the Court below and respondent No. 4 was defendant No. 1.

(3.) Plaintiffs' case in essence was as follows:Defendant No. 1 being owner of the suit land transferred the same by a registered sale deed dated 7-6-1982 to the plaintiffs for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/-. There was an agreement between the vendor and the vendees that plaintiff No, 1, who was staying at Calcutta, shall pay consideration money after his return therefrom. The sale deed was executed and registered with a condition that the consideration money shall be paid at the time of endorsement of the registration ticket, after registration of the deed. On 8-6-1982 no intimation could be given to the plaintiff No, 1 due to cyclone. On 9-6-1982, therefore, he was intimated to come with the consideration money. On 12-6-1982, plaintiff No.1 came and offered the consideration money to defendant No. 1. It was then disclosed that she had already transferred the land in favour of defendant No. 2 by cancelling the earlier sale deed. On enquiry, the plaintiffs came to know that on 9-6-1982 defendant No. 1 purchased stamp paper for cancellation of sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, and on 10-6-1982 the deed of cancellation was made by defendant No. 1. On that very day, i.e., 10-6-1982, defendant No. 1 executed and registered another deed in favour of defendant No. 2 on 7-7-1982, the plaintiffs filed the suit as defendant No. 2 disturbed their possession. It was the specific stand of plaintiffs that possession was delivered to them.Both the defendants contested the suit by filing their written statements. Their case in short is that title in respect of the suit land had not passed in favour of the plaintiffs. as they had not paid the consideration money. Defendant No. 1, therefore, being left with no other alternative, cancelled the sale deed and executed another sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 on 10-6-1982.