IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No. 63 of 2005 1. Ramjee Thakur 2. Shankar Thakur, both sons of late Jarman Thakur, residents of village-Mohammadpur, Sinuara, P.S. Bahadurpur, District-Darbhanga …Defendants 2nd party-Appellants-Appellants. V e r s u s 1. Ram Sakal Thakur, son of late Baue Lal Thakur, resident of village-Mohammadpur Sinuara, P.S. Bahadurpur, District- Darbhanga. …Plaintiff-Respondent-Respondent 1st set. 2. Smt. Sushila Devi, wife of Sri Shyam Nandan Singh. 3. Shyam Nandan Singh, son of late Shatrughan Singh, both residents of village-Mohammadpur Sinuara, P.S. Bahadurpur, District-Darbhanga. ….Defendants-Respondents-Respondent 2nd set. 4. Ganaur Thakur, husband of deceased Bauan Devi. 5. Ram Ratan Thakur 6. Binod Thakur, both sons of Ganaur Thakur, residents of village-Pauram, P.S. Hayaghat, District- Darbhanga. …..Defendants-Respondents-Respondent 3rd set. For the appellants : M/s Raghu Bansh Singh, Sr. Advocate and Satyapal Singh, Advocate. For the respondents: None ----------- 09/ 10.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed by defendants 2nd party- appellants-appellants challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.82 of 1986, which was filed by the sole plaintiff-respondent-respondent for specific performance of contract dated 25.06.1985 against the defendants and for directing them to execute a sale deed with respect to the suit land in favour of the plaintiff within specified period failing which the sale deed should be executed in favour of the plaintiff by the procedure of the - 2 - Code and for other ancillary reliefs. 4. The said suit was decreed on contest with cost by learned Subordinate Judge-III, Darbhanga vide judgment and decree dated 19.02.1998. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court defendants 2nd party filed Title Appeal No.14 of 1998, which was dismissed on contest without cost by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.II, Darbhanga vide his judgment and decree dated 09.11.2004. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 5. After hearing the arguments and after perusing the materials on record, including the judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that it had been concurrently found that the plaintiff had been able to prove that defendant no.1 failed to manage money for her important requirement and hence she intended to sell the suit property and when the plaintiff approached her, she became ready to transfer the suit land to him settling the consideration money at Rs.3,500.00, whereafter agreement for sale was executed on 25.06.1985 by defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff after receiving an advance of Rs.1000.00, whereas the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed within a year but although the plaintiff was always ready and willing to pay the remaining amount, defendant no.1 did not execute the sale deed and hence the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit for the said reliefs. 6. Both the learned courts below after considering the evidences of the parties came to the conclusion that there were several sets of defendants and the testimonies of their respective witnesses were - 3 - contradictory to each other and thus they were not fully reliable. It was also found by the learned courts below that the plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence to show that defendants 2nd party and others had full notice and knowledge of the execution of the aforesaid agreement for sale by defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff and besides that the executant of the sale deed and her daughter clearly stated in their written statement that the said defendants got the sale deed and deed of gift executed by Most. Thakni Devi by playing fraud upon her and hence the said deeds were not executed in good faith for value. It was also found that Thakni Devi and defendant no.1 both denied that defendants 2nd party ever got possession of the suit land and hence it was concurrently held that defendants had not been able to show that they purchased the suit land in good faith for value and without notice of the agreement for sale in question. 7. In the light of the said materials, the learned courts below did not find any reason to reject the deed of agreement for sale when the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and also in view of the fact that defendant no.1 and the original defendant both have admitted the claim of the plaintiff and the plaintiff had produced sufficient evidence to show that still he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Defendant no.1 and his mother had also admitted that Most. Thakni Devi was fully entitled to execute the agreement for sale and besides her, Baun Devi, who was examined as PW.16 admitted that she and her sister relinquished their share in the suit property and hence the defendants also by their own evidences had admitted the case of relinquishment. The learned courts below also held - 4 - that the sale deeds executed in favour of defendant nos.5 and 6 on 03.10.1986 were hit by doctrine of lis-pendense under the provision of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and hence by the said document the vendee cannot be said to have got any right or title in the suit property in question and apart from that none of the defendants had been able to prove the genuineness and validity of their aforesaid documents which according to their vendor herself, was obtained by fraud without payment of any consideration money, although they had full knowledge of the agreement for sale. 8. 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.)