The court emphasized the necessity of demonstrating the existence of a contract for specific performance and the importance of proper evidence, including original documents.

JUDGMENT :

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present first appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.02.2020 (decree signed on 07.03.2020) passed in Original (Title) Suit No. 85 of 2009, whereby and whereunder, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-1st, Jamshedpur partly allowed the suit of the plaintiff by allowing the suit for Specific Performance of Contract dated 29.11.2004 directing the defendants (appellants) to deliver 12 flats as mentioned in Schedule-B to the plaint to the plaintiff within four months, a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disposing off or in any way to alienate or transfer the schedule-B flats or any portion thereof to any person along with a decree declaring that the registered Sale Deed No. 2084 and 2085 both dated 29.04.2006 executed by defendant no. 2 as an attorney of the plaintiffs in favour of defendant no. 1 represented by Rajendra Prasad Pathak is illegal, void and inoperative and at the same time declining the relief sought by the plaintiffs for recovery of Rs. 17 lakhs from the defendants.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiffs have acquired suit Schedule-A land through valid registered sale deed no. 2486 dated 06.04.1984, Area – 5 Katha of land in favour of plaintiff no. 2 and vide registered sale deed no. 7760 dated 15.12.1990, Area – 5 Katha of land in favour of plaintiff no. 1, vide registered sale deed no. 198 dated 17.01.1994, Area – 2 Katha of land in favour of plaintiff no. 2 and deed no. 199 dated 17.01.1994, Area – 3 Katha of land in favour of plaintiff no. 1, as such, plaintiffs came into peaceful possession of the aforesaid total 15 Kathas of land and being husband and wife jointly owned the suit property as described in Schedule-A to the plaint.

4. Further case of the plaintiffs is that defendant no. 1, M/s Eastern India Home Makers is the Proprietorship Firm of defendant no. 2, who are promoters of defendant no. 1 and carries on business of developer and builder in the town of Jamshedpur. The plaintiffs, for the purpose of construction of building and development of land mentioned in Schedule-A to the plaint, entered into an agreement with the developer and promoter of M/s Vijaya Homes Pvt. Ltd., which could not be materialized, as such, the said agreement was cancelled by the parties. Thereafter, the defendant no. 2 approached to the plaintiffs and apprised about his own business of development of land and construction of building in the name and style of M/s Eastern India Home Makers (defendant no. 1) and gave out that he has been disassociated himself from M/s Vijaya Homes Private Limited and has started his own independent business and requested the plaintiffs to give him the suit Schedule-A land and the house standing thereon for the purpose of development of land and construction of building over the said land.

5. The plaintiffs also apprised to the defendant no. 2 that he has constructed a double storied building in the portion of the said land, which incurred expenditure of Rs. 10,00,000/- and also installed bore well and constructed pucca boundary wall incurred cost of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs as firs