RAMJANAM TEWARY Vs. BINDESHWARI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against an order of the learned Sub-ordinate Judge of Chapra adopting a compromise arrived at between the parties under Order 23, Rule 8, Civil P. C. In my opinion, it is a very unfortunate litigation and it should not have been allowed to develop. It will presently appear from the facts stated below that a litigation of this character amounts to an abuse of legal processes.

(2.) The appeal in question arises out of two title suits which were being tried together before the learned Subordinate Judge, the parties to the suits being common. One of the suits, Title Suit NO. 72/7 of 1944/46 was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent, Bindeswari Bai, for specific performance of a contract of sale in respect of a hou3e belonging to defendants 1 and 2 who are the appellants in this Court, These appellants have a house in Mahalla Ratanpura of the town of Chapra. One portion of this house is a two-storied building and other portion is one storied. The plaintiff, Bindeshwari Bai, who carries on the profession of singing and dancing in the town of Chapra, came to occupy the two storied-portion of the house in question as a tenant on rent whereas it appears from the evidence that the other portion of the house, which is one storied, was in the occupation of the defendant Ramjanam Tewary himself. The plaintiff's case in this suit was that on 12-1-1944, the defendants agreed to Bell to her the two storied portion of the house in her occupation offering to execute the sale deed within a period of six months, and on 13-1-1914 accordingly a sum of Rs. 2,000 was paid as earnest money to the defendants-appellants. On 21-6-1944, defendant 1 purchased a stamp-paper worth Rs. 112-8-0 for the execution of the sale deed in question, but later on the defendants failed to do so on one pretext or another. The plaintiff thereafter sent a notice to the defendants asking them to execute the sale deed in question, but the defendants sent a rejoinder refusing to do so and making certain counter allegations, one of them being that there was a contract for sale of both portions of the house in question for a consideration of Rs. 10,000. The plaintiff accordingly instituted the suit referred to above for specific performance of contract as alleged by her.

(3.) The defendants filed their written statement in the suit. In their written statement they did not dispute the fact that there was a contract on 11-1-1944, in pursuance of which a sum of Rs. 2000 had been paid as earnest money to the defendants on 13-1-1944. They allege, however, that the contract in question was in connection with the sale of the entire house holding No. 512/513/496 old and new, including the pucca portion on the east and the wall to its west and the tiled portion of the house further west, all specified in Schedule B of the written statement for a total sum of Rs. 10,000. They also alleged that the agreement further was that the sale deed should be executed within a period of three months from the date of contract when the balance of Rs. 8000, the consideration money, would be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants and that not having been done, the defendants did not execute the sale deed in question. The other suit, namely, Title Suit No. 249/39 of 1944/45 was instituted by the defendants-appellants against the plaintiff, Bindeshwari Bai, for arrears of rent and for ejectment. As I have said, with the consent of parties the two suits were made analogous and were being tried together by the learned Subordinate Judge.