ANARSA DEVI Vs. RADHA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 10-4-1991 passed in F.A. No. 300/81 whereby the judgment and decree dated 16-5.1981 passed in T.S. No. 66/46 of 1978/80 declaring the compromise judgment and decree passed on 12-1-1978 in T.S. No. 33/77 null and void, has been reversed.

(2.) During pendency of Letters Patent Appeal, Appellant No. 1, namely, Ram Udgar Mahto and Respondent No. 1, namely, Ram Prasad, Rai died., Their heirs were substituted. However, Ram Udgar Mahto and Ram Prasad Rai hereinafter shall be referred to as Appellant No. 1 and Respondent No. 1 respectively for the sake of brevity and clarity.

(3.) Ram Prasad Rai (deceased) Respondent No. 1, filed T.S. No. 33/77 against the appellants for specific performance of contract stating therein that the Appellant No. 1, Ram Udgar Mahto (deceased) who was in need of money for paying sudbharana money approached him for sale of 2 bighas 12 kathas 12 1/2 dhoors of land described in schedule A of the plaint for a consideration of Rs. 10200/- he agreed to purchase the land and accordingly Ram Udgar Mahto, the Appellant No. 1 executed a deed of agreement on 5-9-1974. AT the time of execution of agreement he paid Rs. 8000/- and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed within the specified period. Appellant No. 1 again approached him for sale of 1 bigha 3 kathas of land, details of which are mentioned in schedule B, for consideration of Rs. 46000/-. He agreed to purchase and accordingly Appellant No. 1 executed a deed of agreement on 7-10-1976. Out of the consideration money, he paid Rs. 40007- at the time of execution of agreement and balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed within the specified period. He was also put in possession of the land in question in part performance of contract. The Appellant No. 1 also handed over the documents with respect to title of the land is question i.e. the land described in schedule A & B. He was always, willing and ready to perform his part of agreement but the appellants were avoiding to executed the sale-deed and as such he sent a registered legal notice dated 19-4-1977 requesting the Appellant No. 1 to executed sale deeds after receiving the balance amount but he knowing about the notice refused to receive the same and as such suit was filed for specific performance of contract.