- (1.) This is defendant's regular second appeal against judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, whereby judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs was maintained.
(2.) Plaintiffs filed suit for specific performance as well as for possession of the suit property on the ground that defendant along with his sister Smt. Chhoti executed an agreement on 16.4.1985 for sale of the suit land along with all rights of shamlat deh etc. for a consideration of Rs. 1,40,000/-. A sum of Rs. 32,000/- was paid as earnest amount. Sale-deed was to be executed on or before 16.5.1985. It has also been stated in the plaint that pursuant to agreement dated 16.4.1985 Smt. Chhoti had executed sale-deed on 7.6.85 in respect of her share. Since defendant No. 1 had declined to execute the sale-deed as per agreement dated 16.4.1985, hence the present suit.
(3.) Defendants contested the claim of the plaintiffs on a number of grounds including that property in dispute stands already transferred in favour of sarvshri Sheoni Ram, Ram Kalan, Chhaju, Pala and Mewa (parties to the suit). In addition thereto, it has also been stated in the written statement that Smt. Nimbo had at no time agreed to sell the suit property and her thumb impression had been procured on plain papers and it is thereafter fictitious agreement has been drawn thereupon. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- (1) Whether the defendant No. 1 and her sister Chhoti executed the agreement dated 16.4.1985 and received a sum of Rs. 32,000/- as earnest money for selling the land if so its effect? OPP. (2) Whether the plaintiffs have been ready and willing to perform his part of contract if so its effect? OPP. (3) Whether the decree dated 22.7.1985 in civil suit No. 373/85 in Re Sheoni v. Smt. Nimbo is quite null and void on the rights of the plaintiff on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPD. (4) Whether the suit in the present form is not maintainable? OPD. (5) Whether the suit is not valued properly for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD. (6) Whether the suit is barred on account of non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD. (7) Relief. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence adduced decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of plaintiffs. Issue No. 3 was also decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Issue Nos. 4 to 6 were taken together and found in favour of the plaintiffs. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance was decreed in their favour on their deposit of balance consideration of Rs. 54,000/- on or before June 30, 1989, failing which the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed. In case defendant No. 1 fails to execute the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were held entitled to get the sale- deed executed through the agency of the Court.;