Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 16.01.2012, passed by Sub Judge -II, Ranchi and Decree signed on 03.02.2012, in connection with Title Suit No. 220 of 2010 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for specific performance of agreement dated 30.08.2007 has been decreed and the appellant/defendant has been directed to execute and register Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent with respect to suit land after taking balance consideration within sixty days from the date of preparation of the decree and the plaintiff will bear all the expenses incurred in the execution and registration of Sale Deed.
(2.) THE plaintiff has made out case in the plaint that land recorded under R.S. Khata No. 308, Plot No. 540, area measuring 1.92 Acres, Village - Pundag, P.S. - Ranchi (Now Jagarnathpur), District - Ranchi is the ancestral property of defendant and other co -sharers. The aforesaid land was recorded in the name of Langra Teli who died leaving behind two sons namely Jeetbahan Teli and Inder Teli as his legal heirs and successors who inherited the property after death of Langra Teli. Thereafter, the two brothers Jeetbahan Teli and Inder Teli amicably partitioned the property and acquired possession over the land fallen in their respective shares. It is further contended that the legal heirs of Jeetbahan Teli and Inder Teli also partitioned the property amongst themselves and they acquired respective shares of land allotted in their favour. After having possession over their respective shares of land, they had also sold the landed property to different purchasers for valuable consideration and it was not objected by any other co -sharers. In order to show that the legal heirs of Jeetbahan Teli and Inder Teli sold portion of their respective shares of land to different purchasers, the plaintiff has given details of respective Sale Deeds in the plaint. In that context it is contended that the defendant, who is son of co -sharers Lakhan Sahu, had executed a Sale Deed for a piece of land under R.S. Khata No. 65, portion of Plot No. 1039, area measuring 5 Katha in favour of Smt. Jaimati Devi, wife of Ashok Kumar Kashyap on 24.06.2004. In the recital of said Sale Deed, it was indicated that Lakhan Sahu, father of the defendant, is physically weak and ailing person and he is unable to do his day -to -day work and he has authorised and entrusted his son - the defendant, to look after the property and he may dispose it off, if necessary, for the welfare of the family. The defendant made the plaintiff convinced that he has been authorised by his father to dispose off the property allotted in the share of his father and executed an agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff on 23.08.2007 against land under R.S. Khata No. 308, Plot No. 540, area measuring about 10 Decimal, village - Pundag at the rate of Rs. 50,000/ -per Decimal and that against a total sum of Rs. 5 Lacs, received Rs. 50,000/ - through Cheque No. 952304/834002010, S.B.I. Ashok Nagar Branch, as advance. The land in dispute is morefully described in the schedule of the plaint. The appellant/defendant further received Rs. 6,000/ -on 15.09.2007 through Cheque No. 952505/8340020 of SBI, Ashok Nagar Branch and Rs. 10,000/ - through Cheque No. 952500 of SBI Branch, Ranchi and receipt thereof has been acknowledged on the back of the agreement. In this way a total sum of Rs. 66,000/ - was paid to the defendant. The plaintiff was always willing and ready to purchase the suit property on payment of balance consideration amount and he also offered the balance consideration amount to the defendant but on false pretext, the defendant kept on evading execution and registration of the Sale Deed. Thereafter, the Plaintiff served notice through the Advocate under registered post with A/D dated 17.11.2008 and 20.12.2008 to the defendant but the defendant had not paid heed towards execution of Sale Deed in respect of suit property. When the defendant failed to perform his part of obligation under the agreement, the plaintiff had left no option but to institute a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 23.08.2007. The cause of action arose on 23.08.2007 when the agreement was executed and on subsequent dates when notices requesting the defendant to execute Sale Deed were served. On the basis of plaint, Title Suit No. 220/2010 was registered in the Court of Sub Judge -I, Ranchi.
(3.) THE defendant, after service of notice, appeared before the trial court and filed written statement but did not adduce evidence in support of the contention made in the written statement. Therefore it is not needed to reproduce the same.;