JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for respondent no. 11.

2. This second appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2012 (decree signed on 22.09.2012) passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge III, Ranchi allowing the Title Appeal No. 75 of 2007 with modification and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 11.05.2007 (decree signed on 25.05.2007) passed by the learned Sub-Judge-VI, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 68 of 1991.

3. Title Suit No. 68 of 1991 was instituted by the appellant/plaintiff seeking relief against all defendants that a decree for specific performance of agreement dated 17.09.1990 be passed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff and against the defendants and the defendants be directed to execute the registered deed of sale with respect to the property in suit within a time to be fixed by the court failing which the same may be executed and registered in favour of the appellant/plaintiff through the process of the court. The said suit was dismissed on contest vide judgment dated 11.05.2007. Aggrieved with that judgment, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred Title Appeal No. 75 of 2007, which was decided vide judgment dated 12.09.2012 and the learned appellate court found that the appellant/plaintiff has been fully able to prove her case in her favour, but since the property in question has been sold to the defendant no. 3 by defendant no. 2 through registered deed after receiving the entire consideration amount and it has been proved that defendant no. 3 is bonafide purchaser and she is on the possession of the suit property, so the appellant/plaintiff is only entitle for refund of the entire consideration amount along with Rs. 7,000/- for stamp paper with interest @ 6% per annum from the institution of the suit till the realization. The appellate court further held that the substituted defendant no. 1(A) to 1(E) are jointly liable to pay the entire amount of Rs. 47,000/- with interest as stated in the judgment within three months from the date of that order, failing which, the appellant/plaintiff is at liberty to realize the amount through the process of the court and the learned appellate court set aside the judgment of the learned trial court with modification and the appeal was allowed. Aggrieved with that judgment, the appellant/plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

4. The appellant/plaintiff instituted the said title suit stating therein that the defendant no. 1 being the owner of the suit property has executed a registered agreement for sell dated 17.09.1990 in favour of the plaintiff with respect to 5 kathas of land out of R.S. Plot no. 552 of Khata No. 37 situated at village - Gari, P.S. Sadar, Thana No. 194, District - Ranchi more fully described in the schedule of the plaint for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/- only per katha and in pursuance of the agreement the defendant no. 1 received a sum of Rs. 20,000/- only as advance from the plaintiff on the date of execution and registration of the said agreement itself. It was further stated that according to the terms of the agreement the defendant no. 1 was required to execute and register the deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff within a period of three months from the date of execution and registration of the agreement after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority i.e. Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976. The defendant no. 1 received a further advance of Rs. 20,000/- from the plaintiff on 26.10.1990 and made an endorsement on the back of the certified copy of the registered agreement aforesaid and thus the defendant no. 1 received the entire consideration money amounting to Rs. 40,000/- from the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 promised to execute and registered the deed of sale after obtaining necessary permission of the competent authority under the