CHANDRADIP RAI Vs. MD TAHIR ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiffs is against the judgment of reversal passed in Title Appeal No. 42 of 1994 by 2nd Additional District Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, setting aside the judgment passed by Subordinate Judge III, Vaishali at Hajipur in T.S. No. 198 of 1982.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the plaintiff-appellants is that plaintiff Nos. 2 & 3 are sons of plaintiff No. 1 and all the plaintiffs constitute a joint Hindu Mitakshra family of , which plaintiff No. 1 is Karta. Defendant No. 1 sold 5 dhurs of land of his own share to the plaintiffs mentioned in Scheduled-I & II of the plaint vide two sale deeds (Exhibits-6 & 6/A) one in the name of plaintiff No. 2 for 2 1/2 dhurs and the other in the name of plaintiff No. 3 for another 2 1/2 dhurs for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/- each. After adjustment and advance made to defendant No 1 a sum of Rs. 5,000/-was only left of be paid to him with the agreement that plaintiffs would pay the same at the time of exchange of equivalence, for which no definite date and time was fixed. Defendant No. 1 received Rs. 1800/- from plaintiff No. 1 on 26.9.1982, and, thus, Rs. 3200/- only was left to be paid to defendant No. 1 as consideration money, of the said kewala. Before this payment on 23.8.1982 plaintiff No. 1 paid Rs. 5,000/- to defendant No. 1 which was the amount due regarding the other sale deed taken in the name of plaintiff No. 3 and defendant No 1 gave the registration receipt of the said sale deed after making necessary endorsement on the back of the receipt. So far the registration receipt of another sale deed in the name of plaintiff No. 2 is concerned, defendant No. 1 stated that the said receipt is not with him and it was agreed that defendant No. 1 would take the balance amount from plaintiff No. 1 after he would trace out the registration receipt to be handed over to the plaintiffs. Thereafter, on various occasions plaintiff No. 1 tendered the balance amount to defendant No. 1 with a request to hand over the registration receipt, but he evaded on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, plaintiffs served notice to defendant No. 1 on 8.10.1982 personally, who remained silent on the said point and canceled both the sale deeds through two cancellation deeds dated 13.10.1982 after five days of the receipt of the said notice without any information to the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of their title to suit lands mentioned in Scheduled I & II and for fixing a particular date to deposit in Court the balance amount of Rs. 3200/-, which is unpaid consideration of a sale deed of land mentioned in Schedule-I of the plaint, and defendant No. 1 be directed to withdraw the aforesaid amount and deposit in Court the original sale deed, failing which the certified copy of the said sale deed be treated and declared as original and possession thereof be delivered to the plaintiffs through the process of the Court.

(3.) THE trial Court on consideration of the pleadings as well as evidence both oral and documentary adduced on behalf of the parties declared that the plaintiffs have acquired valid right and interest in the suit land on the basis of their sale deeds (Exhibits-6 & 6/A) and directed the plaintiffs to deposit in Court the balance amount of Rs. 3200/- of Exhibit-6/A and defendant No. 1 was directed to withdraw the said amount and to deposit in Court the original sale deed, failing which the certified copy of the said sale deed will be treated and declared as original sale deed. THE lower appellate Court on appeal reverse the findings of the trial Court by holding that the plaintiff has no title over Scheduled I &l! property, hence, the present appeal by the plaintiffs.