PRADIP NARAIN SINGH Vs. BRIJ NANDAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are appellants before this Court against the judgement of affirmance passed in a suit for specific performance of contract.

(2.) The plaintiffs' case in short, is that one Umrao Mahto died in jointness leaving behind two sons Tosila Mistry and Khush Lal Mistri. Khush Lal died leaving behind three sons, Karu, Ugrasen and Sukh Lal. Karu's son is Siri who had two sons and they are plaintiffs. Sukh Lal died leaving behind his widow (defendant No. 1) and three daughters (defendants 2, 3 and 4). The interest of Sukh Lal in the suit property was admittedly 1/6th. It is said that on 21-4-1969 defendant No. 1 who is widow of Sukh Lal executed a Mahadanama in favour of the plaintiffs agreeing therein to transfer 1/6th share in the suit property in their favour for Rs. 5000/- out of which Rs. 4000/- was paid. Defendants 1 to 4 who are widow and daughters of Sukh Lal sold their 1/6th share in the suit property to defendants 5 and 6 under registered sale deed after execution of the Mahadanama in favour of the plaintiffs by defendant No. 1. Defendants 5 and 6 sold the property purchased by them as stated above to defendants 7 to 13 under a registered sale deed. So far as defendant No. 7 is concerned, he purchased the suit property in the name of his father who is none else than defendant No. 14 and defendant No. 14, as a matter of fact, is Karmu Mahto though by mistake he has been shown in the grounds of appeal as well as in the decree under appeal and the plaint as Karu Mahto. Since defendant No. 1 failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, the same necessitated filing of the present suit in question.

(3.) Only the purchasers, namely, defendants 7 to 13 appeared and contested the suit and their case, inter alia, was that the Mahadanama was not genuine; they were purchasers for value without notice and, therefore, the suit was fit to be dismissed.