Nishita Mhatre, J. - (1.) THE appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in Title Suit No. 278 of 1997 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, 2nd Court, Howrah on 31st May, 1999.
(2.) FOR the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as they were in the Trial Court. The brief facts relating to the present appeal are as follows: The appellant/plaintiff was a tenant in respect of two rooms appurtenant to the Municipal holding No. 30, Sreeram Dhang Road, Salkia, Howrah. The appellant claimed that his landlord, the defendant No. 1/respondent No. 1 herein, promised to sell him the suit property sometime in the month of April, 1997. The consideration for that transaction was fixed at Rs.3,10,000/ - (Rupees three lacs ten thousand). According to the appellant he paid to the defendant No. 1 Rs.10,000/ - as earnest money and the latter promised to execute the deed of conveyance within three months thereafter. The plaintiff claimed that out of the remaining Rs.3 lacs, Rs.1 lac was to be paid by cash and Rs.2 lacs by a bank draft on the date of execution of the conveyance. He further claimed that as there was a cordial relationship between himself and the landlord, the agreement was not reduced into writing and nor was any receipt taken by him in respect of payment. The plaintiff received a letter on 2nd June, 1997 informing him that the property had been sold to defendant No. 2. By a letter dated 4th July, 1997, the plaintiff called upon the defendant No. 1 to execute the conveyance in respect of the suit property in his favour or to refund the earnest money. As the defendant No. 1 failed to comply with the demand of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance of the oral contract. The defendant No. 1 filed his written statement denying that there was any sort of transaction between himself and the plaintiff for sale or otherwise of the suit property. He denied having accepted any payment from the plaintiff and contended that the property had been sold to the defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 1 claimed that he had no contractual obligation to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the plaintiff.
(3.) THE defendant No. 2 pleaded in his written statement that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the suit property and that therefore the suit was required to be dismissed.;