SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. SMT. MEENA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dtd. 13/10/2022 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-I, Sub Divisional Court Danapur, Patna in Title Suit No. 165 of 2020, whereby the suit instituted by the plaintiffappellant for specific performance of agreement to sale dtd. 4/8/2019 has been dismissed without contest.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff/appellant, in brief, is that the defendant acquired the suit property i.e. a triple storied building situated at Mahabir Nagar Gola Road, Danapur, by virtue of registered Sale Deed No. 5214 dtd. 6/8/2009 executed by Biranjan Sah and others. After purchase, the defendant got her name mutated and constructed the building thereupon. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant agreed to sell the said property to him for a total consideration amount of Rs.15,00,000.00 and an agreement to sell dtd. 4/8/2019 was executed between the parties. According to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.50,000.00 was paid on 4/8/2019 as earnest money and thereafter further amounts were paid on different dates i.e. Rs.50,000.00 on 15/8/2019, Rs.50,000.00 on 18/8/2019 and subsequently Rs.2,00,000.00, totaling Rs.3,50,000.00 and more, which were duly acknowledged by the defendant by putting her L.T.I. and signature on the back side of the agreement itself. The plaintiff further pleaded that the balance consideration amount of Rs.11,50,000.00 was to be paid by 4/4/2020 at the time of execution of the sale deed. Several legal notices dtd. 11/2/2020, 3/3/2020, 29/6/2020 and 14/8/2020 were issued by the plaintiff calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed, but the defendant failed to perform her part of the contract and instead sent a reply denying the agreement.

(3.) The record reveals that despite service of summons through ordinary process, registered post as well as publication, the defendant failed to appear before the trial court and accordingly the suit proceeded ex-parte vide order dtd. 25/4/2022.