FAZLE AHMED Vs. RAJENDRA NATH ROY CHOUDHURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff instituted this suit for recovery of Rs. 6,250 made up of Rs. 5,501 as earnest- money in connexion with the contract for sale of a plot of land 22 bighas in area, and Rs. 749 being the amount of damages and interest. The suit has been dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, and hence this appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff's case as laid in the plaint was that the Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8 proposed to sell the land to him for Rs. 13,200 and a bainapatra was executed by them in his favour on the 28 September, 1919, on receipt of Rs. 501 as earnest-money, that later on he came to know that there were other owners who were unwilling to part with the property, and that at last he had to agree to increase the consideration to Rs. 20,100, upon which all the defendants executed in his favour another bainapatra on the 16 July 1920 on receipt of a further amount of Rs. 5,000 as earnest-money. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had stipulated to convey a good title to the properties and to obtain the requisite permission of the District Judge and make over vacant possession of the property at the time of the transfer; but that the title of the defendants was defective and the defendants had failed to produce their title-deeds in spite of requisition and were negligent in completing the transaction.

(3.) The case put forward on behalf of the defendants was that the first contract was made with one Sricharan Prosad Shaha, who was not the plaintiff's benamidar as alleged on behalf of the plaintiff, that there was no representation made by them, that there were no other owners, but, on the other hand, Sricharan knew full well that there were other owners, that the plaintiff was very eager to purchase the property and came to a settlement with Sricharan, paid him up and got his consent to negotiate the sale for himself that the plaintiff was satisfied with the title which the defendants were able to show, approved of the same and thus the second bainapatra was executed; that the defendants obtained the necessary permission from the District Judge and ejected the tenants who were on the land at considerable cost; that by this time the plaintiff had changed his mind or was unable to complete the transaction and had failed to secure a buyer and so put the matter off repeatedly and on false and frivolous pretexts; and that accordingly the plaintiff was not entitled to a refund of the earnest money, nor any damages or interest.