RAJENDRA MAHTO Vs. RAM NANDAN SINGH AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant appellant has filed this first appeal against the Judgment dated 4.12.1990 and the decree signed on 17.12.1990 by Sri Balmiki Prasad Sinha, the learned Ist Subordinate Judge, Danapur, in Title Suit No. 62 of 1988 decreeing the plaintiff respondents' suit for specific performance.

(2.) The plaintiff respondents' case, in short, is that on 28.10.1985 the parties entered into an agreement for sale of the suit property for a consideration amount of Rs. 3,42,400/-. Rs. 50,000/- was paid as earnest money and the balance consideration amount of Rs. 2,92,400/- was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. The sale deed was to be executed before 30.6.1986. It was stipulated that if the sale deed is not executed within the said period the plaintiff will have the right to file a suit for specific performance and if the plaintiff failed to get the sale deed executed within the stipulated period the amount of advance money shall stand forfeited. At the time of agreement the defendants assured the plaintiff that the land in question was free from all defects and encumbrances and the defendants have full title over the land in question.

(3.) The further case of the plaintiff is that scribe was the man of defendants and the attesting witnesses were also men of the defendants. The plaintiff believing on the defendants without reading the agreement signed the same but subsequently he learnt that a litigation being Title Suit No. 252 of 1985 was pending against the defendants regarding the suit property in the court of Sub Judge-II, Patna. Thereafter the plaintiff suspected some foul play and got the agreement read by his advocate and came to know that the defendant fraudulently got inserted a new term in the did of agreement to the effect that the plaintiff was to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- within 30.1.1986 failing which advanced money has been forfeited. According to the plaintiff this term was never agreed upon. In such circumstance on 16.1.1986 the plaintiff sent a legal notice asking the defendant to settle the dispute with his uncle in title suit pending between them and informed the plaintiff accordingly, so that the sale deed may be executed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff again sent another legal notice on 16.6.1986 stating that they have balance consideration amount ready and again asked the defendants to settle the dispute with the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 252 of 1985. But the defendants remained silent regarding the Title Suit No. 252 of 1985. The plaintiff again sent another legal notice on 25.9.1986 making the same request. The plaintiff further stated that the defendants approached the plaintiff and assured that Title Suit No. 252 of 1985 was going to be compromised but in spite of that the defendants kept silent and did not take any further action so again a notice was sent on 14.7.1987 informing the defendants that they are keeping ready the balance consideration amount and sought information regarding as to whether the dispute between the parties in Title Suit No. 252 of 1985 had been settled or not. Surprisingly, the defendants sent a belated reply on 22.9.1987 making out a case that the plaintiff did not pay Rs. 1,25,000/- on or before 30.1.1986 in spite of the demand, so, the advanced amount was forfeited and agreement of sale became inoperative. In the said notice falsely it was alleged that the plaintiff had no ready money and he did not obtain income tax clearance certificate and did not take steps under Ceiling Act and further did not furnish draft sale deed.