- (1.) Heard Mr.B.P.Tierbe, learned counsel for the appellants.
(2.) This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2016 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-VII, Ranchi in Title Appeal No. 23 of 2013 (T.R. No. 6/2016) dismissing the appeal and the decree passed by learned Sub Judge-II, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 404 of 2007 judgment dated 17.01.2013 and decree dated 29.01.2013 have been affirmed.
(3.) It transpires from the judgment of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court that appellants/plaintiffs have instituted the suit for decree of specific performance of the contract dated 16.12.2004 ordering the defendants/respondents to execute sale deed with regard to the land of the said contract dated 16.12.2004 which is the suit property of the present litigation. It was the case of the appellants/plaintiffs before the court below that on 16.12.2004 Rupan Mahto and Harinath Mahto had entered into an agreement with plaintiffs/appellants of the present suit to sale the land on the consideration amount of Rs.2 lacs and they have received Rs. 50,000/- from the appellants/plaintiffs by way of part consideration amount in advance. The plaintiffs/appellants paid Rs.50,000/- by means of cheque bearing no. 953008 dated 08.12.2004 of ICICI Bank, Ranchi. It was agreed between the parties in aforesaid agreement that on payment of balance consideration amount, seller shall execute the sale deed to buyer (appellants/plaintiffs). Further the case of the plaintiffs/appellants was that time fixed by that agreement was three years and the sellers have permitted the plaintiffs/appellants to construct the boundary wall around the suit land. It was also stated that in the present suit the defendant no.1 Surendra Mahto is the son of deceased Rupen Mahto who was one of the executants of the said agreement of sale. Further the case of the plaintiffs/appellants was that inspite of several request and reminders, defendants/respondents did not execute the sale deed and ultimately appellants/plaintiffs sent legal notice to the defendants/respondents under registered post which were refused by the defendants/respondents giving no option to the plaintiffs/appellants filed the present suit. It has been further stated that the present suit has been filed within the period of limitation i.e. within three years from the date of execution of sale and has been properly valued at Rs.2 lacs for the purpose of jurisdiction of this court as well as for the reliefs. The defendants Harinath Mahto died during the course of trial and Chandra Shekhar Mahto and Suraj Mahto have been substituted in his place as legal heirs in the court below. Inspite of knowledge the respondents/defendants did not appear in the court below the case proceeded ex-parte against them vide order dated 23.06.2009.;