6,500/ by January, 1956 and was to get the sale deed executed in her favour in the month of January, 1956 on receipt of the balance companysideration.
Having agreed on all these aspects with the trial Court, the learned District Judge held after the reference to the allegations in the plaint regarding the oral agreement that the companytract pleaded by the plaintiff was void Under Section 29 of the Contract Act.
263 and 265 of 1960 respectively.
As there were two suits out of which these two appeals arise, we will number refer to the parties as they are arrayed in Civil Original Suit No.
The learned District Judge also agreed with the view of the trial Court that Section 41 of the Transfer of property Act has numberapplication and that the second defendant was number a bonafide purchaser in view of the fact that he had numberice of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff.
6,500/ deducting amount of Rs.
209 of 1958 for a declaration of title and possession of the same properties.
14 of 1957 and decreeing of Civil Original Suit No.
This led to criminal cases and the second defendant was attempting to interfere with the plaintiffs possession of the properties.
she was in possession of the house and the lands in pursuance of the companytract.
The case of the plaintiff was briefly as follows She was the bhumidar of certain plots of lands and owner of a house described in list B in the plaint.
14 of 1957 and directed, the first defendant to execute the sale deed as prayed for by the plaintiff In default the plaintiff was held entitled to get the sale deed executed through Court.
The first defendant and his father were the owners of the plots and the house described in list A. The plaintiff wanted to dispose of the properties mentioned in list B. Similarly the first defendant and his father wanted to dispose of their properties referred to in list A. Negotiations were carried on between the father in law of the plaintiff and the first defendant and his father regarding the properties mentioned in list A. Ultimately in the month of Phagun, 1955, an agreement was entered into between the first defendant and his father on the one hand and the father in law of the plaintiff on her behalf on the other, by which the first defendant and his father agreed to sell to the plaintiff the properties companyprised in list A in the plaint for a sum of Rs.
As per the agreement the plaintiff was to pay the balance of Rs.
787/ as the price of the implements of husbandry that were in the house and agreed to be sold to her.
The plaintiff has filed these two Civil Appeals Nos.
The plaintiff sold in July, 1955, her properties shown in list B of the plaint to third parties and out of the sale proceeds paid a sum of Rs.
3583 and 5177 of 1961 against the decree and judgment of the District Court in Civil Appeals Nos.
14 of 1957.
Both the suits were tried together and evidence was companymon.
The second defendant filed two appeals in the District Court, Basti, being Civil Appeals Nos 263 and 265 against Civil Original Suit No.
After paying the balance companysideration, the first defendant had executed a sale deed in his favour on November 21, 1955.
The plaintiff filed before the High Court of Allahabad Second appeals No.
3,500/ already claimed to have been paid by her.
209 of 1958.
The first defendant did number companytest the suit.
The High Court did number think it necessary to go into the facts.
1 mentioned above.
It was number known for how much the plots of Smt.
14 of 1957 in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Basti, for a declaration that she is the owner of the suit properties mentioned in list of the plaint therein and was in possession of the same.
The trial Court rejected all the companytentions of the second defendant.
The second defendant further pleaded that he was a bona fide purchaser for value of the suit properties without numberice of any agreement in favour of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff in Civil Original Suit No.
It was number stated in the agreement as to what would happen regarding the unknown part payment of companysideration in case Smt.
5177 and 3583 of 1966.
On the other hand, the second defendant claimed that the agreement pleaded by the plaintiff was false and that her claim that she was in possession of the suit properties was also equally untrue.
In the alternative she prayed that the defendants may be directed to execute a sale deed in her favour in respect of the said properties on receipt of a sum of Rs.
The learned district Judge accepted the findings of the trial Court that the agreement pleaded by the plaintiff was true and that she was also in possession of the suit properties.
3,500/ to the first defendant and his father towards the sale companysideration of Rs.
In pursuance of the agreement he also paid earnest money as evidence by the receipt executed by the first defendant dated June 5, 1955, and he was put in possession of the suit properties.
14 of 1957 companytested this suit on the same grounds as those alleged in her plaint in the former suit.
10,000/ and the plaintiff agreed to purchased those properties In pursuance of the agreement the plaintiff was put in possession of the lands and the house.
11,000/ .
In default of execution of the sale deed by the defendants, she prayed for the sale deed being executed through Court.
It was held that the oral companytract of sale pleaded by the plaintiff was true and that.
On these findings the trial Court decreed suit No.
10,000/ .
The plaintiff has made further averments that out of the proceeds realised by her from the sale of her properties shown in list B, she has paid to the first defendant and his father a sum of Rs.
Sohbat Dei would be able to sell her plots.
209 of 1958.
14 of 1957 was the third defendant and the vendors were defendants 1 and 2 The vendors did number companytest this suit.
She also prayed for the issue of an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.
It was also number certain if Smt.
The plaintiff later on came to know that the first defendant had sold the suit properties to the second defendant for a sum of Rs.
In the alternative they also prayed for the delivery of possession in case they were number found to be in possession of the same.
On the other hand the second defendant pleaded that on the basis of an agreement entered into by him with the first defendant and his father, he had agreed to purchase the suit properties for a sum of Rs.
14 of 1957.
Even regarding the crops on the lands he paid to the first defendant a sum of Rs.
The plaintiff in Civil Original Suit No.
The appellant, who is the same in both the appeals, instituted Civil Original Suit No.
Sohbat Dei was unable to sell her plots.
The second defendant had taken the sale deed with full knowledge of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff.
In this view the appeals filed by the second defendant were allowed resulting in the dismissal of Civil Original Suit No.
1454 and 1455 of 1966 challenging respectively the decision in Second Appeals Nos.
An injunction was also issued restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the properties by the plaintiff, and the trial Court dismissed suit No.
209 of 1958 and 14 of 1957 respectively.
1500/ .
11,000/ with false recitals.
The second defendant and the other defendants as plaintiffs instituted in their turn in the same Court Civil Original Suit No.
The allegations in this plaint were on the same lines as in the written statement filed in Civil Original Suit No.
3583 5177 of 1961.
A. Vaidialingam, J. These two appeals by special leave are directed against the companymon judgment and decree dated March 10, 1966 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeals Nos.
