Sanjay Yadav, J. - (1.)This is plaintiff's second appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 7.12.2010 passed in Civil Appeal No. 03A/2010 affirming the judgment and decree dated 8.2.2010 dismissing thereby the Civil Suit No. 2 A/2009.
(2.)Plaintiff brought a suit for declaration; permanent injunction and specific performance of contract for sale of 1/2 land bearing Khasra No. 3538/1 area 1.31 acre, 3540/1 area 0.11 acre, Khasra No. 3540/4781/2 area 0.12 acre, Khasra No. 3540/4782 area 0.10 acre, situated at village Khakari, Tahsil Hanumana, district Rewa. And for declaration that, sale deed dated 12.2.1999 is void, inter alia, contending that, the defendant No. 1 Ramshankar entered into an agreement for sale of suit land for consideration of Rs. 6000/ - with the stipulation that the plaintiff would be at liberty to get the sale deed executed as per his convenience. That, the entire consideration was paid and the plaintiff was placed in possession over suit property. That, the agreement of sale was entered into on 6.2.1996 in the format of "Indutalab", i.e., Promissory Note, stamped and signed in the presence of the witnesses who also appended their signature. That, the plaintiff was always ready and willing to execute the sale deed; however, the defendant No. 1 despite being approached on 30.12.1998 and 2.1.1999 did not show any interest and was not ready and willing to execute the sale deed. That, during pendency of suit, the suit property came to be sold to one Parasnath, defendant No. 4 (respondent No. 5) for consideration of Rs. 40,000/ - vide registered sale deed dated 12.2.1999.
(3.)Defendants denied the plaint allegation. It was contended that half of Khasra No. 3538 was owned by defendant No. 2 and remaining half was owned by Eksiya, who sold her share to the defendant No. 1 in 1967 and gave him the possession thereof and since then he is in possession. The defendant No. 1 denied of having any share in the suit property. It was further contended that on 9.9.1982 defendant No. 2 sold 0.50 acre of Khasra No. 3538 in favour of her sister Sudamia. The defendant No. 1 further denied the execution of any agreement of sale of suit property. And that the agreement in question dated 6.2.1996 was forged. It was further contended that the defendant No. 1 filed complaint case against two persons who prepared the alleged Promissory Note and the witnesses. Defendant also rose an objection as to maintainability of the suit for non -joinder of necessary party. It was also contended that Eksiya sold out 1/2 of 0.10 acre of Khasra No. 3840/4782 to one Budhiram for Rs. 700/ - by sale deed dated 20.7.1967. That, there was a mutual transfer of land between Budhiram and Ramavtar, father of plaintiff whereon 0.5 acre of Khasra No. 3635 was transferred to Ramavtar vide instrument (Palatnama) dated 3.8.1971 which was duly registered. It is further stated that it is in respect of same land that the plaintiff forged the "Indutalab" and during pendency of suit got endorsement of possession entered in the revenue record.