- (1.)THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22. 7. 1988 passed by the Ld. Addl. District judge. First Court. Howrah in Title Appeal No. 253/87 affirming those of the Ld. Assistant District Judge. Second Court. Howrah passed on 20. 1 1. 1987 in Title Suit No. 58/82.
(2.)THE plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of a contract, alternatively, for damages on the allegation that the defendant -appellants by an agreement dated 10. 04. 1981 agreed to sell the property in dispute to the plaintiff-respondent at a consideration of Rs. 20,000. A sum of Rs. 201 in cash was paid as 'earnest money by the plaintiff-respondent. Though the plaintiff-respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the defendant-appellants were not willing to execute the sale deed in terms of the said agreement for sale. The plaintiff-respondent sent a lawyer's letter to the defendant-appellants to complete the transaction. As the defendant-appellants failed to comply with the agreement, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance, of the contract for sale with an alternative prayer for damages.
(3.)THE defendant-appellants filed a written statement to offer contest, "they denied the material plaint allegations. According to them, the suit was not maintainable in law and that the agreement for sale as mentioned in the plaint was subject to another agreement for sale entered into on the same day by and between the plaintiff and the defendants on one side as vendors and one Jajati Dutta and others on the other hand as vendees in respect of another portion of land measuring 15 bighas and 12 cottahs. The two transactions were entered into at the same time and one formed part of the other. The plaintiff-respondent backet out from the said agreement for sale with Jajati Dutta and others with a view to defraud the defendant-appellants. It was further alleged in the written statement that, the disputed agreement for sale between the parties la this appeal was never read over and explained to the appellants and the said agreement was manufactured an some blank papers upon which the plaintiff-respondent obtained signatures of the defendant-appellants on some plea. The said agreement was a product of fraud and was not enforceable in law. It was further alleged that no earnest money was paid by the plaintiff-respondent.
;