TIJIYA DEVI DAUGHTER OF SUKHDEO SAO WIFE OF SIDHNATH @ BHUWAN CHAND Vs. SUDHA RANI GUPTA WIDOW OF LATE DURGA CHARAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were the major sons of defendant No. 1 and the defendant Nos. 5 to 8 were the minor sons and daughters of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of allegedly oral contract between her and defendant Nos. 1 to 8 for sale of the suit house. The plaintiff also prayed for a decree of possessions of the suit house and restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit property and the decree was also prayed for a sum of Rs. 572/- spent by the plaintiff for preparation of the sale-deed in pursuance of the contract for the purchase of the suit house.

(2.) The plaintiffs case was that the defendant No. 1 had purchased the suit house, vide registered sale-deed dated 16th March 1952. Her name was mutated in the municipal records and she was paying the taxes thereof. That on 5th November 1961, the defendant No. 1 executed a registered usufructuary mortgage deed in favour of one Gobardhan Lal to pay off her creditors from whom she had taken loan for performing Shradh of her husband Bishuni Ram and for other legal necessities. That Gobardhan Lal was subsequently added as defendant No. 9 in the suit. Three years later, Gobardhan Lal, the mortgagee instituted a mortgage suit being Mortgage Suit No. 87 of 1964 on the basis of the usufructuary mortgage deed in the court of Sub-Judge-I, Gaya. The mortgage suit which was eventually numbered as Mortgage Suit No. 25 of 1966 was contested by the defendants and it was ultimately decreed by the 3rd Additional Sub-ordinate Judge, Gaya on 2nd February 1967. The decree was for a sum of Rs. 6,686.60 with further interest @ 6 per cent per annum.

(3.) The plaintiffs case was further that the said Gobardhan Lal also obtained a decree against some of the defendants in money Suit No. 27 of 1963 from the court of Munsif-I, Gaya with respect to the arrears of rent relating to the suit house. The plaintiff also stated that the family of defendant No. 1 being financially strained needed money to pay the decreetal amount. In such circumstances, the defendant No. 1, the owner of the suit house negotiated with the plaintiff for selling the suit house and the sale price was finalized at Rs. 13,000/-. According to the plaintiff, it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendants that in order to avoid future claims and objections, all the defendants would join the sale and it was also agreed between the parties that a sum of Rs. 9,000/- would be kept in deposit with the plaintiff to satisfy the decree and the municipal dues regarding the suit house and the remaining sum of Rs. 4,000/- would be paid to the defendants at the time of admission of the sale-deed before the registering authority. That, accordingly, a draft of sale-deed was prepared which was approved by the parties and the defendants made over the documents of title and other documents regarding suit house to the plaintiff Thereafter the plaintiff purchased the requisite stamp from the Treasury on 20th June 1967.Thereafter on 21st June 1967, the sale-deed was scribed. On the following day i.e. 22nd June 1967, the defendants, excepting defendant No. 3, executed the sale-deed because the defendant No. 3 was not available that day. Subsequently, the defendant No. 3 refused to execute the sale-deed, hence, the same could not be registered before the registering authority.