M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. This appeal by the defendant appellant under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the judgment dated 13.10.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 36/74 has been dismissed.

2. The plaintiffs-respondents 1 and 2 filed the aforementioned Title Suit No. 36/74 for a declaration that the sale deed dated 19.4.1981 with respect to 24 and 3/4 decimals of land out of plot No. 21/68 and 21/1769 situated at village Chandwa, P.S. Chandwa, district-Palamau executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 is illegal, void, inoperative and without jurisdiction.

3. The plaintiffs case, is brief, is that one Balmukund Nath Shahdeo, father of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 acquired the aforementioned plot by means of three registered sale deeds and after purchase, the father of the plaintiffs demolished the kacha house and constructed pucca building thereon. The said property was allotted by Balmukund Nath Shahdeo to his three sons, namely, the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 who came in possession of the same having 1/3rd shares each in the said property. It is stated that the plaintiffs-defendant No. 1 started feeling difficulty in the joint enjoyment of the property and, as such, they decided that if any of them becomes ready to purchase the shares of the remaining brothers, if offered to them the same shall be done. Accordingly defendant No. 1 offered to purchase the shares of the plaintiffs and the latter agreed to the said proposal and, accordingly, sale deed was executed on 12.12.1961 for 2/3rd share of the plaintiffs in favour of the appellant- defendant. However, on the same day a separate agreement was executed by and in between the parties wherein it was agreed that in case defendant No. 1 decides to sell the property in question he will be bound under the agreement to offer the property to the plaintiffs first for purchase and only when the plaintiffs either jointly or severally declined the purchase the property, the defendant No. 1 would be at liberty to sell the same to any person. Plaintiffs case is that in breach of the terms of the agreement the defendant No. 1 all of a sudden sold the property to defendant No. 2 by a registered sale deed dated 19.4.1971 without offering the property to the plaintiffs for purchase. Further case of the plaintiffs is that in order to bring the registration within the jurisdiction of Ranchi Sub- Registration Office the defendant No. 2 made a showy sale of 0.10 acres of land of village Mesra. Ranchi to defendant No. 1 by means of a registered sale deed dated 16.4.1971. Just after three days the defendant No. 2 on 19.4.1971 got the sale deed registered by defendant No. 1 for the suit property. The plaintiffs therefore, sought declaration that the sale deed dated 19.4.1979 is illegal void and without jurisdiction.

4. Defendant No. 2 contested the suit by filing written statement starting inter alia that the suit is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Defendants case is that before purchasing the suit property it was offered to the plaintiffs by sending registered notice which was refused by them.

5. The trial Court decreed the suit in part. The trial Court held that since the plaintiffs did not seek relief for specific performance of the contract and only a declaratory relief was sought for the suit was decreed in part.

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court the defendant-appellant filed First Appeal No. 112/85. The learned Single Judge after reappraisal of the evidence and after hearing the parties dismissed the said appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

7. Mr. Debi Prasad learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant- appellant assailed the impugned judgment as being illegal and contrary to facts and evidence on record. Learned counsel submitted that the suit itself for mere