JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA, J.:–The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28th January, 1991 decree sealed and signed on 07.02.1991 passed by Sub-Judge Ist, Danapur in Title Suit No. 92 of 1984 whereby and whereunder the suit was decreed in part with cost on contest declaring that the plaintiff no. 1 is entitled for specific performance of contract for sale for the suit land on the basis of deed of agreement for sale dated 15.02.1982 and also entitled to purchase the land in suit with possession over it as per agreement dated 15.02.1982 in the names of different persons for different area and on the basis of different sale deeds after making payment of the balance consideration amount to the defendants directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff no. 1 or his nominee or nominees after receiving the balance consideration amount as per agreement within two months from the date of this judgment failing which the sale deed shall be executed through the process of the court on depositing the balance amount by the plaintiff no. 1 in the court. However, the plaintiff no. 1 was not found entitled to get any interest on the cost of the suit and on advanced money and also not entitled to get Rs. 1,000/- as claimed in the plaint as compensation.

2. Title plaintiffs respondents filed the aforesaid suit for a decree of Specific Performance of Contract against the defendants and also for a direction to the defendants for executing the sale deed on receipt of balance consideration amount in favour of plaintiffs as per the terms of the deed of agreement for sale dated 15.02.1982 and also for other reliefs as claimed in the plaint.

3. Shortly stated, the case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants are the members of joint Hindu Family governed by Mitakchara School of Hindu Law and defendant no. 1 is the manager and Karta of the family. The defendant no. 4 to 6 are the minor sons of defendant no. 1, whereas defendant no. 2 is the brother of the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 3 is the mother of defendant no. 1. The land of Khata No. 55 Plot No. 307 area 2.18 acres are the ancestral khatiyani land of the defendants and their other co-sharers and on partition amongst the four branches each got 1/4th share in the said land and as such each branch got 17 Katha, 8 Dhurs and 16 Dhurki of land. The defendants and other co-sharers wanted to dispose of their land of their share of this plot for meeting the legal necessity, to arrange marriage, to purchase agricultural lands in villages and to meet the costs of education of children and other pressing needs of the family. The negotiation was held through Laxmi Narayan Singh, the plaintiff no. 1 of Title Suit No. 91 of 1984 and defendant no. 1. The plaintiff agreed to purchase and the defendants agreed to sale and accordingly, agreement to sale was executed on 15.02.1982. As per agreement, it was agreed to purchase the said land at the rate of Rs. 11,500/- per katha total value of Rs. 2,00,560/-. It was also agreed to purchase the land either in the name of plaintiff or in the name of his associates in parts according to convenience. The said land situates in village Dhanaut, Mahuabag, Tola Rupaspur, P.S.- Danapur which is fully described in Schedule I of the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, it was made clear to the defendants that suit land would be purchased by different persons for different area to which the defendants readily agreed and the agreement was signed only by plaintiff no. 1 as representative of the entire body of purchasers and the plaintiff no. 1 paid advance of Rs. 20,005/- and on receipt of the said amount the defendants executed the deed of agreement for sale and all the terms and conditions were incorporated therein and accordingly that deed was handed over to the plaintiff no. 1. Plaintiff no. 2 is the associate of plaintiff no. 1.

4. Further case of the plaintiff is that the defendants approached the plaintiff no. 1 for furt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document