SHEOJI DUBEY Vs. NAND KUMAR DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 4 th set have filed this appeal against the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.08.1983 passed by learned 4 th Additional District Judge, Bhojpur, Ara in Title Appeal No.104 of 1973 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.05.1973 passed in Title Suit No.204 of 1969/17 of 1972.

(2.) The plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of contract for sale of raiyati interest in respect of the disputed lands executed by the defendants 1 st set to 3 rd set in favour of the plaintiffs on 26.11.1968. The plaintiffs also prayed that in case the court finds any difficulty in granting the above relief then a decree for refund of the earnest money of Rs.2500 be passed. The plaintiff's further prayed for declaration that they have acquired occupancy rights as under tenants in respect of the disputed land.

(3.) The plaintiffs claimed the aforesaid relief mainly contending that the defendants 1 st set to 3 rd set are the owners of the property. The owners i.e., the raiyats resides far away from the villages where the property is situated whereas the plaintiffs are resident of village near to the property. 40 years prior to the institution of the suit, the defendant nos.1 to 17 made a Sikmi settlement in favour of the ancestors of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs since the time of settlement are coming in possession as Sikmi raiyat, as such, they have acquired occupancy rights as under-raiyat and the defendants 1 st set to 3 rd set have got only right to claim Sikmi rent. On 26.11.1968, the defendant nos.1 to 17 agreed to sell their raiyati rights in the disputed land to the plaintiffs for Rs.5,500 and executed the unregistered deed of contract. Earnest money of Rs.2,500 was paid. The sale deed was to be executed and registered within 30.11.1969. The plaintiffs repeatedly requested for execution of sale deed after taking balance consideration but the defendant nos.1 to 17 executed a sale deed in favour of the defendants 4 th set(appellants). The sale deed is collusive, malafide and illegal. The purchasers had knowledge about the contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant nos.1 to 17. The plaintiffs were and are still ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.