VISHNUDEO NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been directed at the instance of the plaintiff appellant against the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.5.1988 and 26.5.1988 respectively passed in title Appeal No. 59 of 1986 by Shri Lala Anjani Kumar Sinha 3rd Additional District Judge. Hazaribagh whereby and whereunder the said appeal filed by defendant Mahesh Sao was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 8.8.1986 and 22.8.1986 passed in Title Suit No. 80 of 1984 by Shri R.B. Singh, 2nd Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh was set aside.
(2.) THE piaintiff appellant Krishna Ram had filed Title Suit No. 80 of 1984 for declaration that the sale deed dated 8.3.1984 executed by defendant respondent No. 2 Tara Ram in favour of defendant respondent No. 1 Mahesh Sao is null and void and it has conferred no title on defendant respondent No. 1 Mahesh Sao in respect of the suit property detailed in Schedule A of the plaint. A further relief has also been sought directing defendant respondent No. 2 Tara Ram to execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff appellant and also for confirmation . of his possession thereon and in alternative for recovery of possession. The case of the plaintiff appellant, in brief, is that plot Nos. 250 and 251 appertaining to khata No. 23 having an area of 18 decimals and 19 decimals respectively situate in village Kud P.S. Kathamsandi, District Hazaribagh were recorded in the name of Doman Bhuiyan and his son Sukar Bhuiyan inherited the said plots after his death and he was in possession thereon. Sukar bhuiyan died leaving behind his four sons and they came in possession of the said land and about 30 years ago a partition took place between them in respect of the said land and all the sons of Sukar Bhuiyan came in exclusive possession of the land in the aforesaid plots allotted to the respective shares. The further case of the plaintiff appellant is that defendant respondent No. 2 agreed to sell the suit land to the plaintiff appellant and in fact sold the same on 26.5.1982 for a consideration of Rs. 1300/ - and delivered possession over the suit land to the plaintiff appellant but due to his illness he could not execute the sale deed in respect thereof and promised to execute the sale deed after his recovery from the illness. It is alleged that the plaintiff appellant came in possession of the suit land and is still continuing in possession over the same. The further case of the plaintiff appellant is that the defendant respondent No. 2 evaded to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit land as promised on false pretext and the plaintiff appellant came to know in the month of Baishak, 1983 that defendant respondent No. 2 has dishonestly and surreptitiously executed a sale deed in respect of the suit land for Rs. 1,500/ - in favour of defendant respondent No. 1 and the said sale deed is null and void and has not conferred any title on defendant respondent No. 1.
(3.) DEFENDANT respondent No.2 Tara Ram has died during the pendency of this appeal and his heirs/legal representatives stand substituted in his place.;