FARINA NAAZ Vs. SHABNAM BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) The defendants/appellants have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 23/7/2008 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Chaibasa in Title Suit No.13 of 2007 whereby and where under the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Chaibasa has decreed the suit of the plaintiff on contest and directed the defendant Nos.1 and 2 to deliver the vacant possession of the suit property along with the furniture fitted therein in the manner stated in the sale deed within six months from the date of the decree failing which the vacant possession shall be given to the plaintiff through the process of court at the cost of the defendant Nos.1 and 2.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff is a 'Pardanashin' lady. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the owners of the suit property and they sold the suit property to the plaintiff through her husband vide sale deed No.310 dtd. 19/3/2007 for a cost of consideration of Rs.2,50,000.00 Though the suit property has been recorded jointly in the name of four persons but on a mutual arrangement between the recorded tenants and their successors, the suit property fell to the share of the defendant Nos.1 and 2. The suit property is a shop having furniture fitted in it. The plaintiff purchased the furniture fitted in the said suit property on payment of additional amount of Rs.50,000.00. Thus, the total purchase was made by the plaintiff from the defendant Nos.1 and 2 at a cost of Rs.3,00,000.00. An agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 19/3/2007. By another agreement, the parties agreed to keep in abeyance matter of delivery of possession of the suit property for 90 days from the date of registration of the sale deed. After the expiry of 90 days in spite of demanding the vacant possession of the suit property as per the agreement, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not honour the agreement and did not deliver the vacant possession of the suit shop premises to the plaintiff. On the other hand they tried to exert extra judicial pressure upon the husband of the plaintiff to abandon her right under the sale deed. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit with a prayer for declaration of right, title and khas possession of the suit property along with the furniture fitted therein by evicting the defendants therefrom together with the cost.