D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF / appellant has filed the instant appeal against the judgment dated 17.1.1998 and its corresponding Decree dated 4.2.1998 passed in Title Suit No. 19 of 1990 by the Sub Judge -I, Koderma, whereby the suit, as filed by the plaintiff, was dismissed on contest.
(2.) THE suit as filed by the plaintiff was for a declaration that the contract dated 25.3.1985 for the sale of Schedule 'A' land mentioned in the plaint, to the plaintiff by the defendant, was still subsisting and the defendant was bound by the said contract to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. A further prayer was made for restraining the defendant from transferring the suit land to any of the person except the plaintiff by either sale or mortgage or any other. The case of the plaintiff is that on 25.3.1985 the defendant had entered into a written agreement with the plaintiff agreeing to sell 47 decimals of land described in the Schedule 'A' of the plaint for a total consideration of Rs. 3,01,000.00 and the defendant had received a sum of Rs. 501.00 as earnest money from the plaintiff on the date of the agreement and on the same date, had also delivered possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. The defendant had promised to execute and register the sale deed within three months from the date of the agreement i.e. 25.3.1985, but despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff, expressing her willingness to pay the balance of the consideration amount, the defendant had failed and neglected to execute and register the sale deed on one pretext or another. The further case of the plaintiff is that though, at the time of executing the aforesaid agreement, the defendant had represented that the total area of land was 47 decimals, but on actual measurement, it was found only 36 decimals. The plaintiff thereafter served legal notice upon the defendant on 8.5.1985 stating the actual area of the suit land which is situated within the brick built boundary wall and expressing her willingness and readiness to pay the balance of the consideration amount proportionate to the purported actual area and demanding execution of the sale deed in her favour. Demand legal notices were allegedly issued by the plaintiff to the defendant on several dates, the last being on 19.6.1990. The plaintiffs husband approached the defendant on 18.10.1990 with a request to receive the balance consideration amount for the existing area of the land and to execute and register the sale deed, but the defendant had refused to accede to the request claiming that the agreement was not subsisting and binding upon him. Contesting the claim of the plaintiff, the defendant / respondent, by filing his written statement, has challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by law of limitation and it was hit under the provisions of Specific Relief Act. As per pleadings of the defendant / respondent, he had acquired total area of 47 decimals of land by virtue of two separate sale deeds dated 19.12.1970 from Ranjeet Kumar Samonta and Sujit Kumar Samonta respectively, and since the date of purchase, he has been coming in possession of the entire land by constructing the boundary wall over the land. The defendant had pleaded that on account of the good relation between him and the plaintiffs husband, he had mentioned to the plaintiffs husband about his intention to sell the land sometime in the month of March 1985 and on 25.3.1985, the plaintiffs husband along with her son met the defendant at the latter's factory at Jhumaritelaiya. Both visitors brought with them an agreement on which they obtained signature of the defendant, who had appended his signature without going through the contents of the documents. Later on, when defendant went through the copy of the typed paper, he realized that it was purported to be an agreement of sale of the suit land showing receipt of Rs. 501.00 as earnest money and also stating that he had handed over the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff. Defendant has denied to have delivered possession of the suit land to the plaintiff at any point of time or to have handed over any document of title of the suit land. He lodged his protest with the plaintiffs husband denying the latter had ever approached him with his request to sale the suit land to him. The defendant had ultimately relented and agreed to sell the suit land for a total consideration amount of Rs. 3,01,000.00 and had agreed to execute the sale deed and to deliver possession of the suit land only after receiving the full consideration amount. It was pleaded in written statement that under the terms of the agreement, the sale deed would be executed within three months after receiving the full consideration amount, but the plaintiff or her husband failed to pay the consideration amount within the time stipulated in the agreement in spite of several reminders by the defendant during the period. The defendant has further asserted that the total area of the land was 47 decimal and the boundary wall was constructed over 45 decimal leaving 2 decimal as vacant land in the front towards right side. The further contention of the defendant is that a proceeding under Sec. 144 Cr. PC was initiated in the year 1986 between him and one Digvijay Narayan Singh with respect to the same suit land and the rule of restraint in the said proceeding was vacated in favour of the defendant and the suit land is still in possession of the defendant over which he had constructed a small house within boundary wall and the defendant has been paying rent and obtaining rent receipt continuously. The defendant had also pleaded that the price of the land has considerably increased from the date of the agreement and the agreement was not subsisting.
(3.) THUS , according to the pleadings of the defendant, the deed of agreement was signed by him on 25.3.1985. Defendant had admitted that he had agreed to sell the suit land measuring 47 decimal to the plaintiff and to execute the sale deed within three months from the date of the agreement on the condition that the entire consideration amount is paid to him within the stipulated period.;