HAJI ARSHAD ALI Vs. MD SAMSUDDIN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.79 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Karmganj, whereby the defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court dated 15.2.79, was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly, the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the defendant No. 2 was the owner of the land in suit. He had transferred by sale the said land to the defendant No. 1, the present appellant. There was an agreement between the defendant No. 1, the present appellant. There was an agreement between the defendant No. 1 and the defendant No. 2 for purchase of the land by the defendant No. 2. Subsequently, the plaintiff the respondent No. 1 in this appeal had purchased the righ and interest of the defendant No. 2 by sale deed dated 16-2-1974. The plaintiff thereupon required the defendant No. 1 to take Rs. 1,000/- the agreed value of the suit land and to execute registered sale deed in respect of the said land and to deliver its possession. The defendant No. 1 did not pay any need to the demand. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale of the land. The defendant No. 1, the present appellant, contested the suit and denied the allegations. The learned trial Court framed necessary issues, and held that the defendant No. 1 had executed the agreement with the defendant No. 2, for sale of the land in suit for Rs. 1,000/- and that the plaintiff having acquired the right by purchase from the defendant No. 2 for sale of the land in suit for Rs. 1,000/- and that the plaintiff having acquired the right by purchase from defendant No. 2 had the right to enforece the agreement for sale of the land in suit. The learned trial Court decreed the suit. The defendant No. 1 preferred appeal, and the learned appellate Court below by the impugned judgment upheld the finding of the trial Court, and dismissed the appeal.

(3.) Aggrieved, the defendant No. 1 has come in appeal, and Sri A.B. Choudhury, learned counsel on his behalf, has fairly not disputed the concurrent finding of facts by the Courts below that the Ext. 1 the agreement had been executed by the defendant appellant for sale of the land in suit, and that the plaintiff had the right to enforce the said agreement after having purchased the same from the defendant No. 2.