The court affirmed the decree for specific performance of a registered agreement for sale, rejecting claims of multiplicity of suits and readiness to perform by the defendants.

JUDGMENT :

Supratim Bhattacharya, J.

1. The instant appeal arises out of the Judgement and Decree passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Senior Divn., 1st Court, Barasat North-24-Parganas in Title Suit No. 266 of 2011 dated 30.09.2013.

Through the impugned judgement the Ld. Trial Judge has been pleased to pass decree in the suit on contest without cost. The respondents-plaintiffs have been granted a decree for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 24.02.2010 entered with the first defendant namely Manojit Bhattacharjee. The respondents-plaintiffs have also been directed to deposit the balance consideration amount and Manojit Bhattacharjee the then first defendant was directed to execute a conveyance in terms of the agreement for sale in favour of the respondents-plaintiffs after withdrawing the balance consideration amount.

2. The respondents were the plaintiffs in the Trial Court and are the intending purchasers whereas the appellants were the defendants in the Trial court and are the intending sellers of the property.

3. The fact of the instant lis is that Manojit Bhattacharjee, since deceased, the then the appellant No.1defendant No.1 and the respondents-plaintiffs entered into an agreement for sale on 24.02.2010, intending to sell the suit property being 6 cottahs 3 chittaks of land having a one storeyed building measuring an area of 1298 square feet within Barasat Municipality, in Mouza- Prasadpur, under R.S. Dag No. 84 and 85 and Khatian No. 50 and 226 known as land of Taraknagar scheme Plot No. 17 & 17A at a consideration amount of Rs. 35 lakhs. In the said agreement it has been mentioned that a sum of Rs. 16 lakhs have already been paid as earnest money on different dates and it has also been agreed that the balance amount could be paid at the time of registration of the deed of conveyance. The said agreement was registered on 24.02.2010.

Thereafter the respondents-plaintiffs paid further sum of Rs. 4 lakhs 20 thousands to the appellants defendants which was accepted and thereafter on 18.11.2010 the appellant No.1 defendant No.1 issued a letter to the respondents-plaintiffs confirming that the registration of the deed of sale shall take place on 03.12.2010. The appellants-defendants were requested to make arrangement to get the deed of conveyance registered. Since then the appellants-defendants did not responded, on the contrary have sat tight over the matter. In spite of being given several reminders the appellants-defendants have not shown any intention to execute the sale deed. Thereafter the respondents-plaintiffs came to know that the appellants were trying to sell the property to a third party. Initially the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction before the Ld. Civil Judge, Jr. Divn, 1st Court at Barasat bearing Title Suit 662 of 2010 and subsequently the said plaint was amended by incorporating the prayer for specific performance and as the valuation of the suit exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) the plaint was returned and had to be filed before the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) 1st Court at Barasat and renumbered as Title Suit No. 266 of 2011.

4. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants during his exhaustive submission has submitted the following

i) This instant appeal arises from the judgement and decree dated 30.09.2013 pronounced by the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) 1st Court at Barasat in Title Suit No. 266 of 2011 which was a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and specific performance.

ii) The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that there was another suit filed before the Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Barasat being Title Suit No. 662 of 2010.

iii) He has further submitted that having filed one suit before the Ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) the respondents are not entitled to file another suit before the Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) at Barasat on the same cause of action.

iv) The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that he does not know as to