IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No.170 of 2008 ---- 1. Rajdeo Nayak @ Raj Parikshan Nayak S/o Late Mahabir Nayak 2. Hare Krishna Nayak 3. Radha Krishna Nayak Both sons of Rajdeo Nayak @ Raj Parikshan Nayak 4. Raj Mani Nayak S/o Mahabir Nayak 5. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Nayak @ Sashi Bhushan Kumar 6. Ranjan Kumar Nayak @ Ranjan Kumar Both sons of Raj Mani Nayak though he was under the guardianship before the court below but from the appellate decree it appears that he is major. All residents of Village Radhi, P.S. Jalley, District-Darbhanga. --Defendants 2nd Set-Appellants-Appellants. Versus 1. Suryadeo Prasad S/o Late Babuey Lal Prasad 2. Jaybir Prasad 3. Balbir Prasad 4. Ranbir Prasad @ Raghubir Prasad All sons of Suryadeo Prasad Resident of Village Radhi, P.S. Jalley, District-Darbhanga. -- Plaintiffs-respondents 1st Set-Respondents 1st Set. 5. Om Prakash Sah S/O Late Balbir Sah Resident of Village Radhi, P.S. Jalley, District-Darbhanga. Defendant no.1 1st party-respondent 2nd Set-Respondent 2nd Set. ----- For the appellants : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, Senior Advocate. M/s Aditya Narain Singh-I & Rakesh Kumar, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Sukumar Sinha, Senior Advocate. M/s Baidyanath Thakur & Anish Kumar, Advocates. ----- 09. 07.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants 2nd Set-appellants-appellants challenging judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.121 of 1999 which was filed by the plaintiffs-respondents-respondents 1st Set for - 2 - declaration that they had acquired valid legal title on Schedule-A land by way of purchase after payment of full consideration money to defendant no.1 and also for a decree of specific performance of contract with respect to Schedule-B land which, according to the plaintiffs, was agreed by the defendants to sell it to the plaintiffs. The said suit was decreed by the learned Subordinate Judge-III, Darbhanga vide his judgment and decree dated 16.04.2005 which was challenged by the defendants-appellants-appellants in Title Appeal No.14 of 2005 which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-II, Darbhanga vide his judgment and decree dated 20.02.2008. The said judgments and decree of the learned courts below are under challenge in the instant second appeal. 4. So far the relief claimed with respect to Schedule-A land is concerned, Ext-II is the registered deed by which it was transferred by defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have claimed that the entire consideration money was paid, whereafter the said deed was executed as was apparent from the deed itself, but the defendants claimed that the consideration money was not fully paid. However, both the learned courts below by concurrent findings of facts came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had proved payment of consideration money, whereas defendants had failed to prove that consideration money was not paid or fraud was committed in executing the document. This court does not find any illegality in the said concurrent finding of fact of the learned - 3 - courts below. 5. So far Schedule-B is concerned, the specific claim of the plaintiff was that agreement for sale with respect thereto was entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 in presence of defendants no.2 to 5 on the basis of which Rs.10,501.00 was paid on 25.06.1999, Rs.10,000.00 was paid on 26.06.1999, Rs.39,500.00 was paid on 28.07.1999, Rs.10,000.00 was paid on 29.07.1999 to defendant no.1 in presence of defendants no.2 to 5 with respect to the land for which agreement for sale was orally entered into by defendant no.1 and the plaintiffs. 6. The learned courts below have also given serious thought to the said issue and after considering the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had fully proved the fact of oral agreement dated 25.06.1999 between the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 with respect to Schedule B land and out of total consideration money of Rs.94,975/-, Rs.70,001 was received by defendant no.1 as part of the consideration amount and it was also found that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to pay the remaining amount of Rs.24,974 to the defendants, hence, defendant no.1 was duty bound to execute the sale deed. It may be noted in this connection that defendant no.1 who was owner of Schedule-B land and had agreed to sell it to the plaintiffs did not appear in the court below to depose as witness and to prove the pleadings. 7. In the said circumstances, the court below was quite justified in holding that defendants no.2 to 5, who claims to have - 4 - purchased the suit land from defendant no.1 by registered sale deed dated 08.10.1999 much after the oral agreement for sale dated 25.06.1999 between defendant no.1 and the plaintiffs, were not bonafide purchaser for value without valid notice of the previous agreement between the plaintiffs and defendant no.1, rather they had previous notice of the transaction between the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 regarding Schedule-B land which took place in their presence and hence their sale deeds Ext.C-series dated 08.10.1999 were clearly sham and without any value. 8. In the said 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. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)