JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Heard.

1. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the appellant do not want to press I.A.No.03 of 2023 i.e. application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

2. No objection from other side.

3. Accordingly, the application (I.A.No.3 of 2023) is dismissed as not pressed.

4. The present appeal is by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the First Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Suit No. 05-A/2013 wherein a suit for specific performance was dismissed.

5. According to the plaint allegation, the plaintiffs had entered into an agreement of purchase on 20.12.2010 (Ex. P-1) in respect of the part of the land of Khasra No.874/2 and out of that 0.42 acres was agreed to be purchased. As per the plaintiffs, the part of the said land which was subject of sale was acquired by the defendant Nos.1 to 7 i.e. Vikas Goswami (Defendant No.1), Smt. Durga Goswami (Defendant No.2), Minor Ritu (aged about 17 years) (Defendant No.3), Minor Neha (aged about 15 years) (Defendant No.4) {both defendant Nos. 3 & 4 represented by their natural guardian mother Smt. Durga Goswami}, Smt. Urmila (Defendant No.5), Smt. Pramila (Defendant No.6) & Smt. Nirmala Giri Goswami (Defendant No.7), by way of an oral partition in between their family. The plaintiffs further averred that initially the property was in the joint name of Vijay Kumar, Shiv Kori, Shivendra Kori, Shailendra Kori and Smt. Mongra Kori but after the oral partition 0.42 acres fell in share of Shiv Kori, Shivendra Kori, Shailendra Kori and Smt. Mongra Kori and remaining 0.42 acres of land fell into the share of Vijay Kumar.

6. The plaintiffs averred that the part of the land which was subject of agreement only the defendants arrayed were the owners and as per the agreement the total sale consideration was of Rs.25 Lakhs and out of that Rs. 2 Lakhs was paid as earnest money.

7. According to the plaintiffs, the agreement further purport that if the sale is not executed within a period of six months from 20.12.2010 then defendant Nos.1 to 7 were entitled to receive further Rs.3 Lakhs, inasmuch as, a litigation was pending before the Court. The plaintiffs stated that the said litigation came to an end on 05.08.2011 and despite the fact this was brought to the notice of the defendants/respondents Nos. 1 to 7, they failed to abide by terms of agreement. The plaintiffs averred that the defendants since were trying to sale out the land in favour of third party, as such paper publication and the notices were exchanged in between the parties and suit for specific performance was filed.

8. During the trial separate set of written statements were filed. One set was filed by Vikas Goswami, Smt. Durga Goswami, Minor Ritu and Minor Neha. Whereas Defendant Nos. 5 to 7 namely Smt. Urmila, Smt. Pramila and Smt. Nirmala Giri Goswami filed another set of written statement. The plaintiffs further averred that they are ready and willing to perform their part of contract and further served the notices. According to the defence, defendant Nos. 1 to 7 stated that they are not the sole owners of the subject property as Geetanjali Goswami and her daughter Ku. Sonal also have a share in the property, therefore, by segregating their share, the sale deed could not have been executed. The defendants further stated that the signatures on the agreement were obtained on a false assurance to get the property divided from the joint ownership, as such they put their signatures and the agreement is out come of fraud. They also stated that the plaintiffs since did not show any sign to get the sale deed executed by payment of the subsequent sale consideration, they were not entitled to get the sale deed executed. Another defence was raised that Geetanjali Goswami has entered into an agreement of sale but was not a party to the agreement and after receiving part of the sale consideration of Rs.25 Lakhs another agreement was executed with one Shivam Real Estate and agr