Sunil Dutta Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 29.11.2007 passed by learned Subordinate Judge IV, Patna in Title Suit No.35 of 2004 (15 of 2006) whereby and whereunder the suit filed on behalf of plaintiff/appellant has been dismissed on contest without cost.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the trial Court. Defendant nos.2 and 3/respondent nos.2 and 3, who are sons of defendant no.1 (hereinafter referred as defendant), were minor at the time of filing of suit, became major.

4. The case of plaintiff/appellant, in short, is that the defendant being owner agreed to sell the disputed land mentioned in Appendix-I of the plaint to the plaintiff for Rs.1,05,000/- per kattha, totalling for two kattha Rs.2,10,000/- in respect of which the plaintiff paid Rs.60,000/- as earnest money to the defendant and an agreement for sale was executed in favour of the plaintiff on 25.01.2002 wherein it was agreed that within six months from the date of the agreement, on receipt of the balance consideration amount, the sale-deed would be executed. It was also agreed that by that time the defendant would obtain necessary permission for the sale of the said land from the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.

5. Apart from this, the defendant also assured the plaintiff that the said land is free from all title defects and encumbrances. The claim of plaintiff is that he was always ready to pay the balance consideration amount and to get the sale deed and accordingly he requested the defendant for the same. The plaintiff also sent a legal notice dated 09.07.2002 through his advocate to the defendant with respect to receive the balance consideration money and to execute and register the sale deed within 25.07.2002, the time fixed by the agreement, to which the defendant sent a reply on 16.07.2002 through his lawyer alleging wrong and baseless allegations that sale consideration was fixed at the rate of Rs.1,35,000/- per kattha, for a total sum of Rs.2,70,000/- for which agreement for sale was executed on 18.09.2001. It was further alleged that on 25.01.2002, the plaintiff by misrepresenting the fact and playing fraud on defendant got another agreement for sale executed for consideration amount at the rate of Rs.1,05,000/- per kattha.

6. The specific case of the plaintiff is that the price of the suit land was never fixed at the rate of Rs.1,35,000/- per kattha, nor any agreement of sale was executed on 18.09.2001 with the knowledge of the plaintiff. The plaintiff through his lawyer replied to the said reply notice stating the correct facts on 12.08.2002 that he is still ready to pay the actual balance consideration amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and is willing to get the sale deed at once. The defendant again sent reply notice dated 13.09.2002 through his lawyer that plaintiff is avoiding in getting the sale deed and demanded against price of the suit land at the rate of Rs.1,05,000/- per kattha alleging the same to be present market value of the land. It is further claimed that the defendant always avoiding the execution and registration of the sale deed on one or other frivolous and baseless ground and they did not require to obtain the permission from the competent authority. Thus, the defendant violated the conditions mentioned in the agreement with the plaintiff, while the plaintiff was always willing and ready to pay the balance consideration money and to perform his part of contract and is still ready for the same but as the defendant failed to comply the terms of contract which resulted in filing the suit for specific performance of the contract for sale on the basis of agreement for sale dated 25.01.2002.

7. The defendant in his written statement denied the claim of the plaintiff and stated that this suit is not maintainable in the eyes of law; t