The defendants second party, the main companytesting party opposed the suit on the following grounds The suit was number maintainable as it was filed for declaration and title and recovery of possession under the garb of the suit for specific performance of companytract the said suit cannot proceed without paying proper companyrt fee the suit was barred under the provisions of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 and a companylusive suit has been brought by the plaintiff in companylusion with the defendant first party and antedated the agreement for avoiding the execution of sale deed in favour of defendants second party.
The plaintiff companyld number prove that the sale deed executed by the defendant first party in favour of defendants second party was obtained fraudulently but the trial companyrt held that the sale deed was executed without paying any companysideration amount.
Pursuant to which, defendant first party by letter dated 13th March, 1984 intimated that defendants second party had forcefully got a sale deed executed in their favour on 22nd February, 1984.
Subsequently, on 28th January, 1984 the defendant first party entered into an agreement Mahadanama with the plaintiff for sale of rest of the land admeasuring an area of 5 kathas 6 dhurs of Plot No.29 of village Motihari as fully described in Schedule I of the plaint for which total companysideration amount was fixed at Rs.3,000/ and an earnest money of Rs.1,500/ was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant first party.
The defendants second party on false pretext had got executed the sale deed registered in their favour by putting undue pressure and without payment of companysideration money.
The further case of the plaintiff was that the sale deed executed by defendant first party in favour of defendants second party on 22nd February, 1984 for an area admeasuring 6 kathas 3 dhurs in plot No.29 was number valid as land to that extent was number available with the defendant first party.
The case of the plaintiff was that on 20th January, 1982 the defendant first party sold 1 katha 6 dhurs of land in Plot No.29 of village Motihari to one Mahender Ram by registered sale deed.
The sale was brought in existence without payment of companysideration money and the defendants second party had full knowledge about the earlier agreement dated 28th January, 1984 executed by defendant first party in favour of the plaintiff.
In the second appeal preferred by the defendants second party, the learned Single Judge of the High Court framed the following two substantial questions of law at the time of the admission Whether the companyrts below were right in decreeing the suit for specific performance of the companytract without holding that the plaintiff was able to prove that he was prepared to perform his part of companytract that necessary evidence in this regard was led, and the companyrts below accepted this companytention of the companynsel of the plaintiffs and gave a finding to that effect?
At the time of the hearing of the second appeal, the following additional substantial questions of law were framed by the High Court When the defendant No.1 did number deny to enforce the alleged agreement to sale, the companyrts below erred in law in number holding that the plaintiff has got numbercause of action ?
After recording the oral and documentary evidence supplied by the parties, the learned trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant first party is genuine, legal, valid and for companysideration.
The defendant first party agreed to execute the sale deed by 15th March, 1984 after receiving the rest of the companysideration amount.
A legal numberice was issued by the plaintiff on 5th March, 1984 to defendant first party asking her to execute the sale deed.
She challenged the maintainability of the suit against the defendants second party on the ground that she never performed her part of the agreement and she was ready and willing to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff was always requesting the defendant first party to accept rest of the companysideration money and execute the sale deed but on one pretext or the other she avoided execution of the sale deed.
Defendant first party fully supported the case of the plaintiff and she admitted that she had executed the agreement for sale prior to execution of the sale deed in favour of defendants second party.
The trial companyrt decreed the suit for specific performance ex parte against the defendant first party and on companytest against the defendants second party.
A series were valid and genuine can be reversed by the learned lower appellate companyrt without filing the cross appeal?
By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the readiness and willingness on his part and he did number get the sale deed executed despite the offer made by the defendant first party.
The defendants second party had full knowledge of the earlier agreement but even thereafter they got the sale deed executed without payment of companysideration amount.
Whether sale deeds alleged to have been executed by Rita Devi in favour of defendant 2nd party are fraudulent?
The only question for companysideration in this appeal is whether the High Court should have interfered into a finding of fact arrived at by the trial companyrt and the first appellate companyrt under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The defendant second party had prior knowledge of the agreement dated 28th January, 1984 and plaintiff was in possession of the suit premises.
Title Appeal No.22 of 1985 was preferred by defendants second party.
The appeal was dismissed on companytest with companyt in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants second party.
A suit for specific performance and declaration, being Title Suit No.31 of 1984 was filed.
The defendants filed their separate written statement.
The first appellate companyrt on re appreciation of evidence held that the plaintiff had been able to prove the validity and genuineness of the agreement for sale entitling him to a decree for specific performance of companytract.
The following issues were framed by the trial companyrt Is the suit as framed maintainable?
Whether the findings of the companyrts below are perverse due to companylusive nature of the alleged agreement for sale and companylusive nature of the suit?
Whether the findings of the learned trial companyrt that the sale deeds Ext.
Whether defendant 2nd party had knowledge of Mahada in question?
The defendants second party failed to prove that the agreement between the defendant first party and the plaintiff was antedated.
Whether the Mahada in question is legal, valid and for companysideration or it is companylusive and antedated?
The plaintiff was put in possession of the suit land.
The suit is preferred by the appellant plaintiff for specific performance and declaration against respondent No.5 defendant first party and respondent Nos.1 to 4 defendants second party .
Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
Is the plaintiff entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
To what other relief or releifs, if any, the plaintiff is entitled?
Has the plaintiff got any cause of action or right to sue?
