Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This second appeal is at the instance of defendants No. 2 to 19 in a suit for Specific Performance of Contract and is directed against judgment and decree dated June 29, 1990 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Ghatal in Titile Appeal No. 74 of 1989 thereby affirming those dated August 31, 1989 passed by the Munsif, Ghatal in Title Suit No. 133 of 1985.
(2.) The respondent No. 1 filed the aforesaid suit against respondent No. 2 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated April 18, 1971 for sale of the suit property at a price of Rs. 14,000/-. According to the respondent No. 1, by the said agreement the respondent No. 2 after accepting Rs. 6,000/- as part payment agreed to sell the suit property free from incumbrances after perfecting their title to the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 was required to pay the balance amount within 14 months thereof. As the title of the respondent No. 2 in the suit property was clouded on account of a false claim preferred by, one Chandi Charan Maity and others, the respondent No. 2 had to file Title Suit No. 10 of 1971 against those persons in the court of Munsif, Ghatal on May 22, 1971 for perfecting their title over the suit property. The said suit was ultimately decreed in favour of respondent No. 2 on consent. Thereafter the respondent No. 1 approached and requested the respondent No. 2 to execute sale deed in his favour but the respondent No. 2 did not execute the same on one pretext or other. However, the respondent No. 2 gave up possession of the suit property in favour of the respondent No. 1 to show its goodwill and on that issue there were several correspondences between respondent No. 1 and the Directors of respondent No. 2. Ultimately on August 21, 1985 the Directors of the respondent No. 2 having refused to honour the said Bainanama on the plea that the same was time barred the suit was filed by the respondent No. 1. During the pendency of the aforesaid suit the respondent No. 2 having sold the suit property by various deeds in favour of the appellants, they were added as defendants No. 2 to 19. The respondent No. 1 subsequently prayed for recovery of possession of the suit property.
(3.) The respondent No. 2, who was defendant No. 1 in the said suit, entered appearance and took time on several occasions for filing written statement but ultimately neither filed written statement nor did it contest the suit.;