- (1.) THIS 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 29th June, 1994 passed by the learned Assistant District judge, Purulia in Title Suit No. 54 of 1987 thereby dismissing the said suit.
(2.) BEING dissatisfied the plaintiff has come up with the present first appeal.
(3.) THE plaintiff-appellant filed a suit being Title Suit No. 54 of 1987 in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge, Purulia, thereby praying for specific performance of agreement for sale of the suit property alleged to have been executed between the plaintiff and the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. The case made out by the plaintiff may be summed up thus : a) The suit property situated within Purulia -Municipality was purchased by Shyam Sundar Sharma (Thakur) (hereinafter referred to as SSS), the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, by a registered sale-deed dated 10th March, 1970. The said property was a self-acquired property of SSS. b) The said SSS died on 1st December, 1996 leaving the defendants as his legal heirs and representatives. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 are the sons, the defendant No. 3 is the widow and the defendant Nos. 4 to 6 are the daughters of the said SSS. c) The said SSS while in possession of the property wanted to sell the same and the plaintiff agreed to such purchase and the consideration money was fixed at Rs. 1,00,000/ -. d) By an agreement dated 27th October, 1986 and registered on 29thoctober, 1986 the said SSS duly executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff to sell the property on consideration of rs. 1,00,000/- and on furtherance of the said agreement, he took Rs. 35,000/- as an earnest money. By that agreement, the said vendor agreed and undertook to register, an appropriate sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff by 31 st January, 1987 and to take balance amount of Rs. 65,000/ -. e) As the said SSS died on 1st December, 1986 he could hot complete the transaction and as such, the plaintiff requested the defendants several times to execute and register the sale-deed and to take the balance amount of the consideration money. The defendants, however, delayed the matter on some pretext or the other. f) The defendants being the heirs and legal representatives of SSS were bound by the agreement and to sell the property to the plaintiff in terms of the agreement. g) The plaintiff was all along ready and willing to perform his part of the contract but due to the refusal on the part of the defendants to perform their part of the agreement, the plaintiff had been compelled to file the said suit. h) The suit property is a three-storied building and the plaintiff was in occupation of the top floor as a tenant previously under SSS and then, under the defendants. The other portion of the building is in occupation of the defendants. Hence the suit. ;