LAKSHMAN URAON,J. - (1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19th December, 1997, passed by the learned single Judge in First Appeal No. 129 of 1996, (R)/Appeal From Original Decree No. 129 of 1996 (r), allowing the said appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 14th June, 1986, passed by the learned Sub -ordinate Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Title Suit No. 57 of 1984, decreeing the plaintiffs/respondents/appellants suit, which was for declaration of right, title and interest, on the basis of registered sale deed dated 18th May, 1984, executed by defendants/appellants/respondents, and also for putting them in possession of the suit lands, covered by the sale deed. 2.The plaintiffs/respondents/appellants filed the said Title Suit No. 57 of 1984, seeking a decree that the sale deed, executed by defendant/appellant/respondent No. 1 on 18th May, 1984, is valid and conveyed right, title and interest to them. Hence, their right, title and interest be declared and they should be put in possession of the suit land by directing the defendant/appellant/respondent No. 1 to receive the balance amount of consideration. 3. The plaintiffs had pleaded that defendant No. 1/appellant/respondent was in need of money and he offered to sell 3 decimals of land, out of Plot No. 613, Khata No. 49 of Village - Lesliganj. The plaintiffs/ respondents/appellants agreed to purchase the same for a consideration of Rs. 13,000/ -. It was agreed that out of the total consideration money, a sum of Rs. 3,000/ -shall be paid by the plaintiffs to defendant No. 1 and the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/ - shall be paid to him (defendant No. 1), when he will hand over the Chirkut, issued by the office of the Registrar, after taking back the original sale deed, to the plaintiffs. In terms of the agreement, the sale deed was executed and it was registered on 18th May, 1984. The plaintiffs after registration of the sale deed, tendered the balance amount to defendant/respondent/appellant No. 1, who did not take the money and instead, he replied that he would take the same at home. Again on 19th may, 1984 plaintiff No. 1 went to the residence of defendant No. 1 with the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/ - but he was informed that defendant No. 1 had gone somewhere else out of his home, and he is expected to come back after a week. The plaintiff again approached defendant No. 1 and requested him to receive the balance consideration amount but defendant No. 1 took the plea that Chirkut (original) had been misplaced somewhere and hence he was not in a position to accept the balance amount. Defendant No. 1 further assured the plaintiff that as soon as the registration receipt would be made available, the plaintiff would be informed and he {defendant No. 1) would accept the payment. The plaintiffs have pleaded that they were always ready and willing to tender the money to defendant No. 1 but he refused to accept the same. On the other hand, the plaintiffs received a notice dated 11th June, 1984 from defendant No. 1 alleging therein, that as they have defaulted in making full payment of the consideration amount, hence defendant No. 1 had already executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 and the sale deed dated 18th May, 1984, executed in favour the plaintiffs, has stood cancelled. The plaintiffs learnt that on 11th May, 1984, defendant No. 1 had executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 2 in respect of the suit land for a consideration amount of Rs. 14,500/ -.
(2.) THE plaintiffs have alleged that they have acquired valid right, title and interest by virtue of the sale deed dated 18th May, 1984, executed by defendant No. 1, in their favour. Hence they are entitled to get delivery of possession of the suit land from defendant No. 1. They also took plea that the registered sale deed, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 did not confer upon him any right, title and interest, regarding the suit land. The defendants in their written statements took the plea, inter alia, that although he (defendant No. ) executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs, but the consideration amount having not been paid to him, no title passed on them and as such possession was not delivered to them. After waiting for a long period, defendant No. 1 for Takazulbadlain and on failure of the plaintiffs to pay the consideration amount, sold the suit land to defendant No. 2 and put him in possession. Further defendant No. 1 cancelled the sale deed by executing a deed of cancellation dated 7th October, 1984, earlier executed in favour of the plaintiffs.
(3.) LEARNED Subordinate Judge framed altogether seven issues for just decision of the suit. After hearing both the parties and considering the documents available, he decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents, finding that the sale deed dated 18th May, 1984 conveyed valid right, title and interest in favour of the plaintiffs and the execution of the second sale deed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 was only for the purposes of getting more money. The trial Court further held that defendant No. 2 purchased the said land with full knowledge of the first sale deed, executed by defendant. No. 1 in favour of the plaintiffs. The trial Court, accordingly, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and directed the plaintiffs to pay the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/ - to defendant No. 1, who, in his turn, would hand over possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs within the stipulated time.;