RSA No.294 of 2015

4. 05.10.2015 1. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment an

d decree passed by the learned Second Addl. District Judge, Puri in RFA No. 108 of 2004 confir

ming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Nimapara in C.S. No

. 137 of 2002.

The appellant as the plaintiff had filed the suit against the respondent-defen

dants for specific performance of contract. The suit having been dismissed, the unsuccessful p

laintiff had carried the appeal and that having also been dismissed, the present move is befor

e this Court by filing this appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion,

the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the courts below

.

3. The plaintiffs case is that the suit land was exclusively allotted to the shar

e of late Bharat Sahoo, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. It is his further case

that Bharat being the owner in possession of the suit land in order to repay the loan that he

had incurred for marriage of his two daughters (defendant nos. 3 and 4) as also to meet funera

l ceremony expenses of his father wanted to sell the suit land. He had approached the plaintif

f to purchase the same for a consideration of Rs.30,000/- in the January, 1996. The plaintiff

having agreed it was decided that since the suit land stood recorded in the name of Rama Saho

o, the father of Bharat, only after mutation of the suit land Bharat would execute the sale de

ed in fvour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff then claims to have paid the entire consideration

money to Bharat on 24.1.96 and in turn Bharat is said to have executed an agreement for sale

of the suit land to the plaintiff in presence of the witnesses and to have delivered possessio

n of the suit land to the plaintiff. The act of execution of this agreement for sale by Bharat

is said to be out of his free will and consent. It is further stated that the plaintiff after

getting possession of the suit land from Bharat remained in possession of the same by putting

ridges, making cow-dung-pit on a portion of it and by raising seasonal vegetables on the othe

r portion. This is said to be with the knowledge of Bharat as well as present defendants who a

re the successors-in-interest of Bharat. It is also stated that such possession was open, peac

eful and continuous. Though it was agreed between the parties to the agreement for sale that t

he sale deed would be executed by Bharat and registered in respect of the suit land in favour

of the plaintiff after mutation of the said suit land in the name of Bharat, within few months

of such agreement for sale coming into being Bharat expired. So, the plaintiff asserts that t

hese defendants being the successors-in-interest of Bharat are legally bound to by the said ag

reement for sale. It is stated that though the plaintiff several times approached the defendan

ts to execute and register the sale deed, the defendants delayed the matter on some plea or ot

her. The plaintiff also claims to have been always ready to bear entire expenses for such docu

mentation and registration of the deed of sale. The plaintiffs further case is that the defend

ants lastly refused to register any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff giving due respect to

said agreement for sale executed by their predecessor-in-interest. So finding no other altern

ative, the plaintiff filed the suit.

The defendants while traversing the plaint averments, have averred that the su

it land was recorded in the name of Nila Sahu, the grandfather of the defendants and Dharamu S

ahoo in the sabik settlement ROR and thereafter in the name of the successors as per the Conso

lidation ROR. It is stated that finally the suit land was recorded in the name of two sons of

Rama Sahoo namely, Dh