MD. ASIM Vs. RAM KHELAWAN YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants-appellants-appellants have filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 03.04.1991 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Saharsa in Title Appeal No.8 of 1981 whereby the learned Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 25.04.1981 passed by learned Munsif, Saharsa in Title Suit No.1 of 1979.

(2.) The plaintiffs-respondents filed the aforesaid suit praying for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the disputed land i.e. the suit land and also for specific performance of contract by directing the defendant no.1 to hand over registration receipt (chirkut) of sale deed dated 16.08.1978 or the sale deed to the plaintiffs and to receive the consideration money of the same by the plaintiffs.

(3.) The plaintiffs claimed the aforesaid relief alleging that the defendant no.1 agreed to sell his land in favour of the plaintiffs by 3 registered sale deeds for Rs.7,000, Rs.4,000 and Rs.4,000 total Rs.15,000. It was agreed between the parties that title will pass on the registration of the sale deed and thereafter the plaintiffs will pay the consideration amount to the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 executed 3 sale deeds accordingly for Rs.7,000 for land measuring 1 bigha and odd, Rs.4,000, second sale deed for 1 bigha and odd and also third sale deed for Rs.4,000 for 1 bigha 4 kathas 3 dhurs. The subject matter of the present suit giving rise to this second appeal is with respect to this third sale deed being dated 16.08.1978 for 1 bigha 4 kathas 3 dhurs. The plaintiffs alleged that after execution of the sale deed, the defendants avoided to receive the consideration amount. However, subsequently, the plaintiffs gave Rs.7,000 out of Rs.15,000 and the defendants handed over one chirkut but did not hand over the other chirkut of two sale deeds. The plaintiffs then learnt that subsequently the defendant no.1 has transferred the property in favour of the defendants-purchasers. The plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, therefore, the aforesaid relief was claimed.