B. Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This first appeal is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24th March, 2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, First Court, Barasat, in Title Suit No. 123 of 1999, thereby dismissing the suit on the sole ground that the agreement for sale was written on insufficiently stamped paper and as such, on the basis of such an agreement, no decree could be passed in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Trial Judge, however, decided all other issues in favour of the plaintiff on merit. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3, the subsequent purchasers, however, have filed a cross -objection thereby disputing the findings of the learned Trial Judge on all other issues decided in favour of the plaintiff.
(2.) The case made out by the plaintiff may be summed up thus: a) The suit property consists of 7 cottahs and 7 1/2 chitaks of land with an old structure with the existing tenants as mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. The defendant No. 1 was the owner of such property. b) The defendant No. 1, on March 29, 1999 entered into an agreement for sale of the said property at the price of Rs. 3 lakh after receiving a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - as earnest money with the stipulations that the plaintiff would be empowered to make settlement for ejectment of the existing tenants residing in the dilapidated structure standing on the property and that he would be entitled to demolish the said building after the eviction of the tenants and divide the land underneath the structure into small plots after making common passage, drain etc. It was further agreed that the defendant No. 1 would be bound to execute and register sale deeds in favour of nominees of the plaintiff and on such deeds, the plaintiff would put his signature as a confirming party. It was further agreed that the transaction should be completed within one year from the date of entering into such agreement. c) Since the date of execution of such agreement for sale, the plaintiff made several development works and spent Rs. 2 lakh for causing the preparation of common passage, drain etc. and also made contact with the existing tenants who wanted to purchase 3 cottahs of land out of the suit property. d) The plaintiff, pursuant to the said agreement, was in actual physical possession over the property and on repeated occasions, asked the defendant No. 1 to deliver the original deed with regard to the schedule property but the defendant No. 1 took time on various pretexts. e) As the plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale with one Kanai Samanta, the existing tenant, the said person on 20th May, 1999 came to the plaintiff's place and had shown to him a letter of attornment written by an Advocate indicating that the defendant No. 1 had already transferred property in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 on 3rd May, 1999. Hence the suit.
(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants by filing two sets of written statements, one by the defendant No. 1 and the other, jointly by defendant Nos. 2 and 3.;