GANESH PRASAD Vs. DEO NANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff of Title Suit No. 194/66 of 1961/65 of the Court of 1st Additional Munsif, Gopalganj, has moved this Court after the dismissal of his appeal being Title Appeal No. 35/10 of 1966/74 by the Subordinate Judge, Gopalganj. He had sought declaration of his title over 2 bighas 1 Dhur of land described in Schedule 1 of the plaint and also for redemption of 1 Bigha 17 Kathas 7 Dhurs of Zerpeshgi land described in Schedule 2 of the plaint and recovery of possession of the land not covered by Zerpeshgi deed as also mesne profits.

(2.) Plaintiffs case stated in brief is as follows : The suit lands belonged to defendants 1 and 2. They executed a Zerpeshgi deed in respect of Schedule 2 lands in favour of defendant 3 and thereafter on 12-6-1961 sold the said lands for a sum of Rs. 2,000/- by executing a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 300/- in cash to him before the execution of the sale deed. Out of the remaining sum, Rs. 1500/- being the Zerpeshgi money of defendant 3, was kept in amanat as also a sum of Rs. 200/- taken as loan by the plaintiff on a hand-note from defendant 3. Plaintiff demanded the registration receipt from the defendants 1 and 2 but they declined to give the receipt on the plea that Rs. 200/- which the plaintiff was required to pay to defendant 3, was yet unpaid. The plaintiff accompanied with defendants 1 and 2 went to defendant 3 and tendered the sum of Rs. 200/- but defendant 3 refused to accept the same. On 20-6-1961 the plaintiff tendered the entire sum of Rs. 1700/- to defendant 3 but he refused to accept on the ground that the Zerpeshgi deed was not with him. On 28-6-1961 also when the plaintiff tendered the said sum of Rs. 1700/- he was told by defendants 1 and 2 that they had already executed a deed of cancellation as also a fresh sale deed in favour of defendant 3. Plaintiff thereafter obtained copies of the deed of cancellation and the sale deed executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendant 3. He found from the recitals of the sale deed that defendants 1 and 2 had wrongly stated that the plaintiff had not paid the consideration money in full and as such no title had passed in his favour. The plaintiff accordingly filed the suit seeking the reliefs as stated above.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 as also defendant 3 filed their respective written statements. Their common case was that defendants 1 and 2 badly needed a sum of Rs. 300/- to meet the marriage expenses of defendant 1 for which purpose they agree to sell the suit land to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, however, failed to pay the said sum and as the payment of the said sum was a condition precedent the sale did not take effect. Since even after the execution of the sale deed the plaintiff did not pay to defendants 1 and 2 any money and as they urgently needed money for marriage expenses, they approached defendant 3 who agreed to pay the full price amounting to Rs. 3000/- before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the document and accordingly defendants 1 and 2 executed the deed of cancellation and the sale deed in favour of defendant 3 and having received the purchase money put defendant 3 in possession.