GAYATRI Vs. OM PRAKASH BARNWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) This Second Appeal filed under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the judgment of affirmance dtd. 23/9/2017 passed by learned District Judge-IX, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No.91 of 2012 whereby and where under the learned first appellate court has dismissed the appeal.

(3.) The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No.143 of 2005 in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division-V, Dhanbad with a prayer for a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and the proforma defendant No.4; declaring their right, title, interest and possession in to and over the schedule A land of the suit, permanent injunction and cost. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the proforma defendant Nos.1 to 3 expressed their willingness to sell the schedule A land to the intending buyers. The defendant No.2 entered into an agreement for sell on 17/2/2013 with proforma defendant Nos.1 to 3 for purchasing the said land. As per the terms of the said agreement entered into between the defendant No.2 and proforma defendant Nos.1 to 3, the balance consideration amount was payable to the vendor i.e., proforma defendant Nos.1 to 3 within six months to get the sale-deed executed but the defendant Nos.1 and 2 could not comply with the said terms of the agreement dtd. 17/2/2013, hence, the agreement stood cancelled and terminated. Then the defendant No.1 became interested to purchase the land from the proforma defendants. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 on being enquired by the plaintiff No.1 intimated the plaintiff No.1 that they have no objection for sell of the suit schedule A land to the plaintiff No.1 by the proforma defendant Nos.1 to 3. The plaintiff No.1 thereafter entered into an agreement for sell in respect of the suit land with the proforma defendant Nos.1 and 3. The proforma defendant Nos.1 and 3 sold the suit land and delivered the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. After thus, purchasing the said land and coming in possession of the same, the plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 and proforma defendant No.4 started exercising diverse act of possession over the suit land, got their names mutated, paid rent to the State. The proforma defendant No.4 made construction of the godown on a portion of schedule A land but as the defendant No.1 started holding threat to the plaintiffs to the effect that the advance paid by him has not yet been returned by his vendors being the perfroma defendant Nos.1 to 3 and even threatened to take possession of the schedule A land by use of force, the plaintiffs filed the said suit with the aforesaid prayer.