KANGALI MUDULI Vs. ABHIMANYU BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in this appeal have called in question the judgment and decree passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Cuttack in Title Appeal No.74 of 2013.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court.

(3.) Plaintiffs case is that the defendant no.1 acquired the suit land on 08.12.1992 under a registered deed of gift (Ext.2) and in order to meet the expenses for the marriage of defendant no.2, he proposed to sale the suit land to the plaintiff. So, according to him, Ext.1 was brought in place on 04.08.1986. It was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the sale of the suit land would be made for consideration of Rs.20,000.00 and that the sale deed would be executed within a period of three years therefrom after obtaining necessary permission from the Urban Ceiling Authority. A sum of Rs.4,000.00 was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants as advance consideration and the balance consideration of Rs.16,000.00 as agreed was to be paid at the time of the registration of the sale deed. It is alleged that the defendants remained totally callous after the same and they did not apply for necessary permission as above despite issuance of notice and thus showed no interest in the direction of the execution of the sale deed and its registration pursuant to the agreement for the sale, i.e., Ext.1. The plaintiff claims to have been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and, according to him, the matter did not materialise simply on account of failure on the part of the defendants to perform their part as contained in the agreement.