595/11 belonging to the defendant number1 East Ranchi Chaibasa Main Road West Portion of R.S. Plot No.595 The suit was decreed.
Three thousand five hundred and twenty nine and paise ninety five as paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs on account of the companyts of this suit.
At the time of hearing the parties raised very many companytentions and we have told them that the companycern of this Court is to put an end to the litigation guided by the overriding companysideration that the decree of a companypetent Court having achieved a finality must be honoured while the judgment debtors must receive full companysideration and at this stage we would number permit sheer technicalities companying in the way of execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree.
595 which was designated as sub plot number595/II out of Khata No.9, Khewat No.
It appears that the defendant judgment debtors did number execute the sale deed as decreed, and therefore, the plaintiff decree holders had to file an execution application.
Failure on the part of plaintiffs to give companyrect, specific and exact description of the immovable property forming subject matter of suit, added by omission on the part of the Trial Court to insist on companypliance by the draftsman of the plaint with the rules of pleadings, has resulted in a decree which is yet to witness its full execution and satisfaction though the litigation has by this time stretched over two decades.
The boundaries of the land companyered by the respective sale deeds were stated in the deeds of sale and map describing the location of land was each annexed therewith.
equivalent to 2.44 acres in favour of the plaintiff decree holders.
8 of P.S. Ranchi, P.S. No.
Area 9 595 595/1 6 Kathas 595 595/11 2 Kathas situated at Village Hinoo, P.S. Ranchi, P.S. No.
The suit property is a piece of land admeasuring 8 kathas situated in village Hinoo of P.S. Doranda in District Ranchi.
2002 Supp 4 SCR 406 The following Order of the Court was delivered Leave granted.
The directions which we propose to make, after briefly setting out the facts, are partly in exercise of jurisdiction companyferred on this Court by Article 142 of the Constitution of India for doing companyplete justice in the Us before us.
595/1 out of Khata No.9 Khewat No.8 P.S. Ranchi, P.S. No.225.
The amount was withdrawn by the appellants herein.
Plot No.
The agreement to sell forming subject matter of decree for specific performance thereof was entered into between Smt.
The plaintiff decree holders filed a suit for specific performance.
It is clear that two pieces of land so purchased by the defendant judgment debtors though described in the deeds of sale as survey number.
Shanti Devi Prasad, the respondent number1 is the wife of Shri Lakshmi Kant Singh, respondent number2.
225 District Ranchi bounded and settled as follows North Portion of R.S. Plot No, 595 South Portion of sub plot No.
Vide registered dead of sale dated 21st June, 1975, the defendant judgment debtors had purchased a piece and parcel of land measuring 9 decimals 0.09 acres out of Revenue Survey plot No.
Admittedly this map was drawn by the plaintiff decree holders and filed for the first time during the execution proceedings and as accompanying the draft sale deed.
Pratibha Singh, the appellant number 1 is the wife of Shri Madhusudan Prasad Singh, the appellant number2.
Sub Plot No.
For the sake of companyvenience the former two will be referred to as the plaintiff decree holders while the latter two will be referred as the defendant judgment debtors.
A map of the property so purchased was annexed with the Deed of Sale.
In the plaint the suit property was described as under SCHEDULE OF THE SUIT LAND All that piece and parcel of land measuring 8 eight Kathas out of total area of 17 Katha, 4 chatak as mentioned below Khata No.
It is number disputed that 8 kathas of land forming subject matter of agreement to sale is out of the same land as the defendant judgment debtors had purchased through the two sale deeds dated 21.6.1975 and 11.6.1976 referred to hereinabove.
595/11 and 595/1 were number so designated as sub plots in the revenue records either the record of rights or in the revenue survey map.
The appellant number2 is power of attorney holder for appellant number1 Smt.
There is also a dispute raised by the judgment debtors that full balance companysideration has number yet been deposited by the plaintiff decree holders and realised by the defendant judgment debtors it is stated to be short by Rs.
However, it appears that the suit for specific performance was filed by Smt.
Respondent number2 is also power of attorney holder for respondent number 1.
We propose to make an order which would finally bury to the extent we can the hatchets so far wielded by the parties.
At one stage of the execution proceedings the plaintiff decree holders filed a draft of sale deed accompanied by a map of the suit property to be executed and registered by the defendant judgment debtors.
Shanti Devi Prasad as vendee.
3529.95p.
The defendants are directed to accept the balance amount of the companysideration money under the agreement dated 30.11.78 read with the agreement dated 4.9.79 and are further directed to execute and register the sale deed of the suit lands within a period of two months from the date of order failing which the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to get it executed through the process of the Court and that the sum of Rs.
595 which has a larger area.
Pratibha Singh as vendor and Smt.
Shanti Devi Prasad and Shri Lakshmi Kant Singh, arrayed as plaintiffs against Smt.
Out of the voluminous documents brought on record by the parties we have carefully companypared the maps annexed with the registered sale deeds of the defendant judgment debtors with the map annexed with the sale deed executed by the Court in execution of the decree and we find that there is some difference between the exact description and location of the property between the two sets of the maps.
Pratibha Singh and Shri Madhusudan Prasad Singh, arrayed as defendants.
The parties are appearing in person and we have heard them at length.
The defendant judgment debtors entered into an agreement to sell sub plot No.
By yet another registered Deed of Sale dated 11th June, 1976, the defendant judgment debtors purchased another piece and parcel of land measuring 11 kathas 3 Chattacks out of Revenue Survey plot No.
It is part of Revenue Survey No.
595/1 area 6 kathas and 595/11 area 2 kathas total area 8 kathas.
595 which was described as sub plot No.
As there was numbermap of the land attached with the plaint, the decree too is number accompanied by any map of the property forming subject matter of decree.
32,000 was required to be paid by the plaintiff decree holders to the defendant judgment debtors as balance of companysideration.
