- (1.) JANARDAN Sahai, J. The suit giving rise to the present second appeal was filed by the plaintiffs Nekram and Nand Ram the respondents in this appeal, for specific performance of a contract of sale dated 7-7-1983 in respect of a plot of land measuring 1. 96 acres in village Khummarpur, Bansgopal the executant of the agreement, who was the sole defendant when the suit was filed, was a co-owner of the plot alongwith his brother Siddhgopal, subsequently impleaded in the suit as defendant No. 2. The suit was decreed by the trial Court for specific performance of contract and the defendant was directed to execute a sale-deed in respect of his share in favour of the plaintiffs. During the pendency of the appeal, Bansgopal sold his half share to Dildar Ahmad Khan who was then impleaded as defendant No. 3. The appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved, the three defendants have preferred this appeal.
(2.) THE plaint case in short before the trial Court was that the defendant Bansgopal had executed the agreement to sell dated 7-7- 1983 for a total consideration of Rs. 20,000/-, out of which Rs. 10,000/- was paid by the plaintiff in advance and the balance of Rs. 10,000/- was payable within three years and the plaintiff could then get the sale-deed executed. THE plaintiffs alleged that they requested the defendant Bansgopal to execute the sale- deed but when he did not do so, they sent a notice dated 18-3- 1986 to him to execute the sale-deed. THE defendant did give reply to the notice but his stand therein was false. THE plaintiffs followed the defendant's reply by another notice dated 19-6-1986 calling upon the defendant to come to the Registration Office on 4-7-1986 to execute the sale-deed. On 4-7-1986, the according to the plaintiffs, they went to the Registration Office but defendant did not turn up. Specific averment has been made in the plaint that the plaintiffs were ever ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The suit was contested by Bansgopal on the ground that the alleged contract of sale was obtained by fraud. The defendant alleges that he was taken to Teshil Kayamganj for preparation of papers in respect of a loan, which he had taken from the plaintiffs, and in that connection his signatures were obtained on blank papers upon which the alleged contract of sale was manufactured. It was denied that the plaintiffs ever requested the defendant to execute the sale-deed after taking the balance consideration. The service of notice dated 18-3-1986 was admitted but it was denied that any notice dated 19-6-1986 was received by the defendant. The averment regarding the plaintiffs' readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract was denied. Plea of Section 168-A of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, hereinafter referred to as the UPZA and LR Act was also taken. The trial Court did not believe the defendants case that the contract of sale was obtained by fraud and held that the transaction indeed was always intended to be one for sale. The plea of Section 168-A of UPZA and LR Act was not pressed before the trial Court and as such was decided on plaintiffs' favour.
(3.) IN the appeal an additional written statement was filed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the co-owners. The main plea put forward by them was that Section 168-A UPZA and LR Act operated as a bar to the sale and that on 27-2-1991 defendant No. 1 had sold his entire share in the plot to defendant No. 3 for valuable consideration and that Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act was not applicable to the case. Written statement was filed by defendant No. 3, the subsequent purchaser, who claimed rights on the basis of sale-deed dated 27-2-1991 executed by Bansgopal in his favour during the pendency of the appeal. IN his written statement the third defendant substantially took the same pleas including that of fraud, which were put forward by the original defendant Bansgopal. The contract of sale for half part on the eastern side was challenged as void. Subsequently an additional written statement was filed by him in which he put forward the plea of bar of Section 168-A of UPZA and LR Act. It was also alleged that he validly purchased the undivided share of Bansgopal and thus became the co-owner of the plot alongwith Siddhgopal, the second defendant, and that after the said purchase, the heirs of Bansgopal who had been substituted in the appeal on the death of their father had no rights left in the plot. The appellate Court affirmed the finding that the agreement to sell was not an act of fraud but had been validly executed. The plea of Section 168-A U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act was also turned down. The appeal was dismissed.;