IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.303 of 2004 Lallan Singh son of Brahamdeo Singh @ Karam Deo Singh, resident of village-Bastipur, P.S.-Dehri, District-Rohtas. ….Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant. V e r s u s 1. Smt. Kamla Devi wife of Lal Bahadur Singh, resident of village- Bhaisahan, P.S.-Dehri, District-Rohtas. …..Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 1st set 2. Rajendra Prasad 3. Surendra Prasad Sons of Lal Mohan Sharma Residents of village-Biran Bigha, Dehri, P.S. Dehri, District- Rohtas. ….Defendants-Respondents-Respondents 2nd set For the appellants: M/s Raghubansh Singh, Sudama Singh and Rajnikant Singh, Advocates. For the respondents: None. ----------- 05/ 22.12.2008 Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the sole plaintiff-appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.176 of 1989, which was filed by the plaintiff for specific performance of contract and if the said relief is not available to the plaintiff then the advance money paid by the plaintiff to defendant no.1 should be returned to him as the agreement for sale between them dated 28.04.1989 was in respect of the suit land measuring 6 ½ decimals for Rs.14,755.00 out of which all the amount was paid in advance except Rs.755.00 which was to be paid at the time of execution of deed of sale which was to be done within 30.07.1989. 2 4. The said suit was decreed in part on contest without cost by the learned Munsif-II, Sasaram vide judgment and decree dated 30.06.1992 by which decree of specific performance of contract was passed only with respect to 1 katha of R.S. Plot No.642 under Khata No.82. The said decree of the learned trial court was challenged by the plaintiff-appellant in Title Appeal No. 96 of 1992, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-V, Sasaram vide judgment and decree dated 31.07.2004. In the instant second appeal the said judgments and decree of the learned courts below have been challenged. 5. From the averments as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the learned courts below considered the matter, including the pleadings and evidence of the parties in detail, whereafter it was specifically held that the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff was not against the subsequent purchaser defendant no.3 and hence no relief can be granted against the said defendant no.3. It was also held that about 1 decimal land was sold by defendant no.1 in favour of defendant no.3 vide Ext.A and the said defendant no.3 was a purchaser for value without any notice of the agreement between the parties and hence no decree can legally be passed against him with respect to the portion of the suit land which he had purchased from defendant no.1. In the said circumstances the learned courts below held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of specific 3 performance of contract only with regard to remaining about 1 katha of the suit land and was also entitled to recovery of that part of consideration money which was with respect to the part of land already sold to defendant no.3. 6. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J.)