Jharkhand High Court
Suka Oraon @ Sukra Oraon Son Of Late ... vs Etwa Oraon Son Of Chamra Oraon @ ... on 15 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No.173 of 2010
------
1. Suka Oraon @ Sukra Oraon son of Late Gandur Oraon, resident of Nagri
Oraon Toli, P.O. Nagri, P.S. Ratu, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand
2. Murhu Oraon, son of Late Dhanu Oraon, resident of Piska Nagri, P.O.
Nagri, P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
3. Rupa Oraon, son of Late Dhanu Oraon, resident of Piska Nagri, P.S. Ratu,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. Biglu Oraon, son of Late Konha Oraon, resident of Piska Nagri, P.O. Nagri,
P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
5. Vijay Oraon son of Late Konha Oraon, resident of Piska Nagri, P.O. Nagri,
P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
6(a) Anil Tirkey, resident of Village Nagri, Oraon Toli, P.O. Nagri, P.S. Ratu,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand
7. Mela Oraon, son of Late Konha Oraon, resident of Piska Nagri, P.O. Nagri,
P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
8. Naresh Oraon, son of Late Konha Oraon, resident of Piska Nagri, P.O.
Nagri, P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
.... .... .... Appellants
Versus
1. Etwa Oraon son of Chamra Oraon @ Chamru Oraon, resident of Nagri
Tola Pandu, P.O. Nagri, P.S. Ratu, District, Ranchi, Jharkhand
2. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellants : Mr. J.J. Sanga, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Oral Order
12/ Dated : 15.02.2022
1. The defendants are the appellants, who have preferred the instant
appeal against the judgment of affirmation passed in Title Appeal No.92 of
2004 whereby and whereunder the suit earlier decreed in favour of plaintiff for
Specific Performance of Contract has been affirmed.
2. The plaintiff's case in brief is that the defendant no.1 is the owner
and recorded tenant with respect to suit land mentioned in Schedule 'A' of the
plaint. On a proposal made on his behalf for the sale of suit land, after
obtaining necessary permission from the parties under Section 46 of the
C.N.T. Act, the plaintiff and defendant entered into a written agreement dated
06.02.1986 and 08.04.1986 whereby the defendant no.1 agreed to sell the land
to the plaintiff. In pursuance to the agreement, Rs.3,800/- was paid in advance
by the plaintiff on 06.02.1986 and thereafter Rs.7000/- was paid by agreement
dated 08.04.1986. On the application of defendant no.1, Permission Case
No.595 of 1985-86 was initiated. The permission was accorded on
consideration of Rs.100/- per decimals. After receiving the consideration
amount and the last installment paid on 20th October, 1987, the defendant no.1
did not execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff instead he
sold the suit land to Dhanu Oraon and Konha Oraon (defendant nos.3 and 4)
through registered sale deed both dated 11.01.1990. Hence, the suit was filed
for Specific Performance of Contract and for declaration that the two
registered sale deed dated 11.01.1990 was null and void.
3. It is the case of the defendant no.1 that the recorded tenant of the suit
land has never purchased the said suit land nor had executed any agreement of
sale or had taken advance money with respect to it. The other averments
regarding permission and for sale is also denied.
It is contended that after due permission (in Permission Case No.690-
R8 II of 1987-88, the land measuring area 9.2 acres has been sold to defendant
nos.3 and 4.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed:-
I. Is the suit barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act?
II. Has the defendant no.1 entered into an agreement with the
plaintiff on 06.02.1986 and 08.04.1986 for sale of said
properties in favour of the plaintiffs?
III. Has the defendant no.1 put the plaintiff in possession of the
suit properties as part performance of the contract?
IV. Has the defendant no.1 obtained permission from the
competent authorities vide Permission Case No.595-R-8-II of
1985/86 to sell the suit property in the name of plaintiff?
V. Had the defendant no.1 taken the balance consideration
amount on 20.10.1987?
VI. Is the defendant no.1 not ready and willing to perform his part
of contract?
VII. Is the two sale deeds dated 11.01.1990 executed by defendant
no.1 in favour of defendant nos.3 and 4 illegal and not binding
upon the plaintiff.
5. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the trial Court recording the
following findings of fact:-
i. The defendant no.1 had entered into an agreement with the
plaintiff. The plaintiff proved the agreement dated 06.02.1986 and
08.04.1986 which was executed by Suka Oraon-defendant no.1 in
favour of plaintiff after accepting advance money of Rs.3,000/- and
Rs.7000/- towards total price of Rs.34,500/-.
ii. As per the agreement, the plaintiff was put in possession of suit
land on 06.02.1986.
iii. The application for permission to sell the suit land was filed by
Suka Oraon which was registered as Permission Case No.595-R-8-
II of 1985/86 and permission to sell the land to Etwa Oraon and
plaintiff of the suit was recorded by S.D.O.
iv. The payment of balance amount Rs.23,700/- was paid to Suka
Oraon but on some pretext or other, he refused the register the sale
deed in favour of plaintiff. Last installment of consideration
amount was paid on 20.10.1987. The plaintiff was ready and
willing to perform his part of agreement.
v. The registered deed of sale dated 11.01.1990 executed by
defendant no.1 in favour of defendant nos.3 and 4 was illegal and
not binding on the plaintiff and defendant nos.3 and 4 had
knowledge of permission obtained in earlier permission case in
favour of the plaintiff.
vi. The learned First Court of Appeal has concurred with the
finding of fact recorded on these issues.
6. The appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the
judgment of the lower Courts are against the weight of evidence. Whether the
learned lower Appellate Court had erred in not considering that defendant
nos.3 and 4 before purchasing or before registration of the sale deed had
obtained permission under Section 46 of the CNT Act.
7. The short question that fell for consideration is whether after entering
into agreement for sale with the plaintiff, after receiving the advance amount
and after taking due permission under Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur
Tenancy Act, the defendant no.1 was within his right to execute the sale deed
in favour of defendant nos. 3 and 4. Both the learned Court have concurrently
held the above facts in favour of the plaintiff and have also noted that he was
put in possession on the basis of the said agreements. It has also been noted by
the Courts below that subsequent purchaser, purchased the suit land with
notice of the earlier agreement.
8. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find
any substantial question of law in this appeal so as to admit it for hearing.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with cost.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Anit
