RAM CHARITRA MAHTO Vs. SATYA NARAIN SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant against a judgment of reversal. This appeal is directed against the 20 judgment and decree dated 9.6.98, passed by the learned 7th Addl. District Judge, Begusarai, in M.T.A. No. 17 of 1991 (Satya Narain Sahu V/s. Ram Charitra Mahto), whereby the defendant ';s appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree dated 18.7.91, passed by the learned Munsif, second court, Begusarai, in Title Suit No. 58 of 1989 (Ram Charitra Mahto V/s. Satya Narain Sahu), has been set aside. The learned trial court had decreed the suit for specific 25. performance of contract. We shall go by the description of the parties obtaining in the plaint.

(2.) THE plaintiff (the appellant herein) had instituted the suit for specific performance of contract with the defendant (respondent). The plaintiff ';s case as stated in the plaint is that the defendant (respondent herein) had executed a Mahadnama (Ext.5), being an agreement for sale, for sale of a plot of land, bearing Khesra nos. 2696 and 2697, appertaining to Khata no. 2442, Tauzi 30. no. 826, covering an area of 18 dhurs and 5 dhurkis with a house situate thereon for a total consideration money of Rs. 8,000/ -. The plaintiff had handed over a sum of Rs. 7,116/ - to the defendant towards part payment of the consideration money at the time of execution of the agreement for sale, and the balance sum of Rs. 884/ - was to be handed over at the time of registration of the sale deed which had to be executed on or before 31.3.89. The plaintiff ';s 35. further case is that he thereafter pressed the defendant to execute the sale deed which he always avoided. In fact, the plaintiff was once called by the defendant to the registration office for execution of the sale deed but he (the defendant) had failed to turn up. The plaintiff is still willing to perform his part of the contract and pay balance of the consideration money.