The appellate court must adhere to procedural requirements and provide reasons for its decisions, particularly when reversing trial court findings, ensuring a proper evaluation of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 15.10.2015 (decree signed on 03.12.2015) passed by learned District Judge-III, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Title Appeal No. 41 of 2009 whereby the learned 1^st appellate Court allowed the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27.05.2009 (decree signed on 02.06.2009) passed by learned Sub-Judge-VI at Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 68 of 2000. Title Suit No. 68 of 2000 was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs-appellants.

3. This appeal was admitted for hearing vide order dated 09^th May2024 on the following substantial questions of law:-

“I. Whether a proposed seller can take a plea of imperfect title on his part in the suit property, in a suit brought against him for specific performance of agreement of sale?

II. Whether first appellate Court has assigned the specific reason for setting aside the findings of the learned trial court?”

4. Title Suit No. 68 of 2000 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking Specific Performance of Contract for sale with respect to suit property as described in Schedule-B of the Plaint having an area of 700 sq. ft.

5. The defendants had contested the suit and on the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed by the learned trial court: -

(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable and has the plaintiff valid cause of action for it?

(ii) Is the suit barred by limitation, waiver, estoppel and acquiescence?

(iii) Is the suit suffer from non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties?

(iv). Is the suit bad under any provisions of law?

(v) Whether the deed of agreement alleged to have been executed on 13.01.1999 is genuine, valid and operative?

(vi) Is the plaintiff entitled for the reliefs of Specific performance of Contract for sale or in alternative for a money decree of Rs. 45,000/- advanced to defendant no. 1 & 2 by the plaintiff?

(vii). To what other relief and reliefs, plaintiff is entitled to?”

6. It was the case of the plaintiffs before the learned trial court that Schedule-A property which is a house premises previously belonged to and was in possession of Yudhistir Giri, father of defendant no. 1 & 2, who died on 16.04.1994 leaving behind him, his widow and Smt. Bhama Devi and two sons Nirankar Giri and Bharat Giri as his legal heirs and successors. Nirankar Giri and Bharat Giri are defendant nos. 1 & 2 and they inherited 2/3rd property jointly in the house premises after the death of Yudhistir Giri according to Hindu Succession Act. Legal heirs and successors of Yudhistir Giri amicably partitioned the suit property and 2/3^rd share measuring 700 sq.ft. was allotted to defendant nos. 1 & 2 and 1/3^rd share measuring 350 sq.ft., out of total area of 1050 sq.ft. was allotted to Smt. Bhama Devi widow of Yudhistir Giri, who was proforma defendant no. 3 in the suit. After partition, defendant nos. 1 & 2 became the absolute owner of 2/3^rd share of the premises described in Schedule-A of the plaint which is separately described in Schedule-B of the plaint and defendant nos. 1 & 2 were in peaceful possession of the Schedule-B premises which was 2/3^rd portion of Schedule-A premises being the rightful owner of the same.

7. It was further case of the plaintiffs that Defendant nos. 1 & 2 expressed their desire to sell the Schedule-B property to the present plaintiffs on a consideration amount of Rs.50,000/- only and accordingly on 13.01.1999, they entered into a written agreement for sale with respect to Schedule-B property with the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs being agreed to purchase the same, paid a sum of Rs.45,000/- to defendant nos. 1 & 2 in advance and it was agreed that the rest consideration amount of R