RAMJI JADAV Vs. RAMCHANDRA PRASAD
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Referred Judgements :-
CHUNCHW JHA V. EBADAT ALL AND ANR.
Click here to view full judgement.
Sia Saran Sinha, J. -
(1.)THE defendants are the appellants in this second appeal which is directed against a judgment of affirmance.
(2.)TWO sale deeds marked Exts 1 and 1 (a) were executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants in respect of certain lands, details whereof are not necessary to be mentioned. The consideration money in each of the two sale deeds was Rs. 2,000/ -. Two money decrees had been obtained against the plaintiff -vendor. The two decrees were being executed in two execution cases, namely. Nos. 34 and 35, each of the year 1965. The decretal dues amounted, to Rs. 1, 381/ - and Rs 1,384/ - in Execution case Nos. 34 and 35 of 1965 respectively. Out of the consideration money of Rs. 2,000/ - the major portion thereof, namely Rs. 1,381/ - and Rs. 1,384/ - were kept in deposit with the vendees for satisfaction of the two decretal dues. The sale deeds mentioned that these two amounts shall be paid by the vendees and they shall keep with them the proof of such payments. The remaining amount of the consideration money, namely, Rs. 476/ - and Rs. 419/ - were to be paid in cash to the vendor.
The plaintiff alleged that the vendees did not pay either the amount which was to be paid in cash or the decretal dues. The result was that the registration receipts of the two documents were not made over by the plaintiff to the vendees. On the assurance of the vendees that the consideration money would be paid, possession was delivered by the plaintiff to the defendants as the cultivating season had set in. The defendant, as alleged by the plaintiff, did not pay the consideration money nor they showed their inclination to pay the same or deliver possession of the property conveyed. This led the plaintiff to institute the instant suit for a declaration that on account of non -payment of the consideration money the defendants did not acquire any title to the lands conveyed and he was entitled to recovery of possession in the circumstances stated in the plaint. There was also an alternative prayer to the effect that in case the plaintiff be not found entitled to a decree for recovery of possession, a decree in respect of the entire amount of consideration with interest thereon be passed against the vendees.
(3.)THE defendants contested the suit mainly alleging that the amount of Rs. 835/ - was paid to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the kebala and the balance amount of Rs. 165/ - which was to be paid towards the decretal dues of the two execution cases was paid by the vendees to one Ramlakhan Yadav for satisfaction of the decretal dues aforesaid. Ramlakhan Yadav demanded an extra amount of Rs. 26/ - from the vendees which they refused to pay. This irritated Ramlakhan Yadav and he paid the amount of Rs. 3,165/ - to the plaintiff out of which the plaintiff was paying the decretal dues in instalments.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.