BASANT BAI Vs. PRAFULLA KUMAR ROUTRAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the appellate judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bhubaneswar in T.A. No. 17/25 of 1983/1982 confirming the judgment and decree passed by learned Munsif, Bhubaneswar in O.S. No. 78 of 1980(I) dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) The appellant, as plaintiff, filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the defendant No. 3 for declaration that the sale deeds executed by defendant No. 3 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are illegal, for permanent injunction against defendant Nos. 1 and 2, for confirmation of possession over the suit property and in the alternative for recovery of possession of the same if she is found to be dispossessed. The case of the plaintiff, in nutshell, was that she purchased Ac. 0.85 dec. of land of plot No. 2946 from defendant No. 3 for constructing a house thereon, but finding that there was no approach road to that land, she wanted to buy the suit land out of plot No. 2942 to use the same as approach road. On her approach, defendant No. 3 agreed and entered into an agreement to sell the suit land to her for a consideration of Rs. 1,500/- received Rs. 750 as advance part consideration and put her in possession of the suit land with an understanding that as soon as that land would be settled in his favour he would execute formal sale deed receiving the rest amount of Rs. 750/-. The plaintiff accordingly raised some construction and compound wall on a portion of the suit land leaving aside Ac. 0.20 dec. on the northern side of her house to be used as approach road. When the matter stood thus, defendant No. 1 dumped some boulders on the suit land on dated 20-8-1980 and tried to demolish the structure of the plaintiff on plot No. 2942. On enquiry the plaintiff learnt that defendant No. 3 in collusion with defendant Nos. 1 and 2 has executed two separate sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 selling away the suit land to them. So, finding no alternative, she filed the suit seeking the aforementioned reliefs.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 in their written statement while denying the entire claim and the allegation of the plaintiff-appellant, pleaded, inter alia, that they purchased the suit land from defendant No. 3 as bona fide purchasers and have accordingly derived right and title over the same. They denied that there was never any agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 for the suit land and that plaintiff was ever in possession of the suit land pursuant to that agreement. Defendant No. 3 in his separate written statement also denied that there was any agreement between him and the plaintiff for sale of the suit land or that he received Rs. 750/- from the plaintiff or ever put her in possession of the suit land. Defendants also challenged the maintainability of the suit and prayed for its dismissal.