Search in selected Domain
MANU/BH/0002/1987Equivalent Citation: AIR1987Pat5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
A.F.O.D. No. 953 of 1977
Decided On: 25.09.1985
Appellants: Md. MustafaVs.Respondent: Haji Md. Isa and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges: Ramnandan Prasad, J.
Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Krishna Prakash Sinha, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: S.K. Majumdar, Radha Pd. Singh, Pashupati Pd. Sinha and Ambika Pd. Sinha, Advs. Subject: Property
Catch WordsMentioned INActs/Rules/Orders: Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 3 Cases Referred: Balchand Mahton v. Bulaki Singth, AIR 1929 Pat 284; Ramkrishna Singh v. Mahadei Haluai, ILR 1965 Pat 596, AIR 1965 Pat 467; Basruddin Khan v. Gurudarshan Das, AIR 1970 Pat 304; Daniels v. Davison, (1809) 16 Ves 249; Hari Charan Kuar v. Kaula Rai, (1917) 2 Pat LJ 513, AIR 1917 Pat 478; Kesharmull Agarwala v. Rajendra Prasad, 1968 BLJR 28; Rameshwar Singh v. Hari Narayan Singh, AIR 1984 Pat 277 Disposition: Appeal dismissed
Ramnandan Prasad, J.
1. This appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and the decree dismissing his suit for specific performance of contract with regard to the sale of a house said to have been entered into by the original defendant 1 Haji Md. Isa and the plaintiff. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that he was a tenant in one of the Katras of a Pucca house, which stood over four decimals of land appertaining to plot Nos. 2230 and 2231 under Khata No. 721 in village Alamgirpur Phulwarisharif, a suburb of town of Patna, which belonged to original defendant 1 Md. Isa, who was his uncle. In the month of April, 1972 Haji Md. Isa expressed his desire to plaintiff Md. Mustafa to sell the house, as he was in need of some money, and eventually, after some negotiation, Md. Isa agreed to sell the house to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. As the plaintiff had not got so much fund with him at that time for getting the sale deed executed, he wanted some time and Md. Haji Md. Isa agreed to grant him some time. It is said that on 14th June, 1972 Md. Isa told the plaintiff that he urgently required Rs. 7,000/- and so he should advance the amount to him and get a deed of agreement to sell executed by him. The plaintiff agreed. On the following day i.e. on 15-6-1972 the plaintiff advanced Rs. 7,000/-towards the aforesaid consideration money of Rs. 20,000/- to Haji Md. Isa, who, in turn, executed an agreement to sell on a stamped paper and delivered the same to the plaintiff. According to this agreement Md. Isa agreed to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the said house in favour of the plaintiff on payment of the balance of the consideration money by the last week of January, 1973, but he put the plaintiff in possession of the entire building at that very time in part performance of the contract. The case of the plaintiff is that he managed the balance of the consideration money and he asked Md. Isa to execute the sale deed, but he did not do, and hence the plaintiff sent a registered notice through his pleader on 7-10-1972 which was refused. In the meantime, the plaintiff learnt that the father of the minor defendants 6 and 7, namely, Arif Hussain, brought a collusive sale deed dt. 20-7-1972 into existence in the name of these defendants said to have been executed by Md. Isa. It is said that this sale deed is a fraudulent document and was brought into existence in spite of the aforesaid agreement executed by Md. Isa in favour of the plaintiff. It has also been alleged that this sale deed can have no legal effect, as it was executed without consideration and with full knowledge of the said agreement in favour of the plaintiff. 3. Original defendant 1 Haji Md. Isa had filed written statement denying the allegations of the plaintiff but he died during the pendency of the suit on 20-6-1974 and his heirs, namely, respondents l(a) and l(b), who were substituted in his place adopted the written statement filed by...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document