SHEO SHANKAR MAHTO Vs. RANJOTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.7.86 passed by 3rd. Additional Subordinate Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Title Appeal No. 31/82 affirming the judgment of the trial court dated 31.5.82 passed in 227/66 title suit no.96/79

(2.) THE plaintiffs of the suit are the appellants here. The brief facts of the plaintiffs ' case in the lower court were that one Shital Singh, defendant no. 1 of the suit (since deceased and substituted by his heirs) had executed a sale -deed dated 27.8.66 in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff -appellants. However, the sale - deed in its recitals stated that consideration money was paid. However, consideration money was not paid as a matter of fact and, therefore, the plaintiff -appellants went to the house of Shital Singh on the next date of the execution of the sale -deed in their favour and offered the consideration money. But, however, Shital Singh refused to hand over the equivalent on the pretext that the same was not available and missing somewhere. The plaintiffs approached Shital Singh several times thereafter, but the latter continued to evade accepting the consideration money and handing over the equivalent. In the meantime, Shital Singh executed a deed of cancellation on 6.9.66 relating to the sale - deed of the plaintiffs. On 3.9.66 Shital Singh executed sale -deed of the plaintiffs. On 3.9.66 Shital Singh executed sale -deed in favour of defendant 2nd set (contesting defendants). The plaintiffs served a law - yer 'snotice dated 10.9.66 upon Shital Singh and thereafter filed the suit seeking declaration of their title on the basis of the sale -deed dated 27.8.66 and they also sought that Shital Singh and defendants be directed to hand over the original sale - deed to the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE trial court and the appellate court both held that for want of payment of consideration money, the plaintiffs ' sale - deed was invalid and they acquired no title over the suit land. The relief relating to the specific performance of contract was also irrelevant and accordingly decided the point. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed by both the courts.