MITHU TANTI Vs. RAGHUNATH PRASAD TANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS first party is the appellant in this First Appeal which arises out of the judgment and decree dated 21st May, 1979 passed by the learned Sub -Ordinate Judge, Sahebgunj. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract with a prayer for direction to the defendants 1st party to execute a sale -deed in favour of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the defendant being the karta of the family, has executed an agreement for sale of the suit property for a consideration of Rs. 11,900/ - out of which a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - was paid to the defendants at the time of execution of the agreement and also Rs. 1,000/ - on 14.12.1976. After executing the said agreement the defendant first party refused to execute the sale deed with respect to the disputed property which gives the cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit, for the relief sought for which was registered as Title Suit No. 39 of 1976. The Court on consideration of the material both oral and documentary, has decreed the suit and directed the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within the time mentioned therein in terms of the prayer made in the plaint.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the. judgment and decree passed by the Court below the defendant first party have filed the instant appeal on various grounds but the learned counsel for the appellants has ultimately confined his argument to the maintainability of the suit itself and has not seriously challenged the findings arrived at by the Court below on different issues framed in the suit. The learned counsel has fairly conceded that the findings of the court below are all based upon correct appraisal of the evidence both oral and documentary and as such the same cannot be challenged.

(3.) IN support of the appeal the principal, and, infact, the only argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Instant suit, for the reliefs sought for is not maintainable in view of Section 20 of the Santal Parganas (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act.) While developing his argument learner, counsel has relied upon various provisions of the Ad in support of his contention It is submitted that the appellant being a raiyat of the land in question has acquired a raiyati interest thereon and as such the said land cannot be transferred in any manner whatsoever in view of the bar created under Section 20 of the Act.