Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(10) The defendant no.5 contested the suit. His defence in short is that the decree passed in Title Suit No.8 of 1950 is legal, valid and binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff was not in possession of any portion of the property sold to the defendant no.5. By the agreement dated 19.07.1952, the plaintiff agreed to pay sum of Rs.30,000 for the purchase of Block 'B' and 'C' from the defendant no.5 within 28.08.1952 and paid Rs.3,000 as earnest money to the defendant no.1 but the plaintiff subsequently did not pay the balance amount of consideration money within the stipulated period. So sale deed could not be executed. Thereafter, the defendant executed the mortgage of conditional sell and put the defendant in possession over the properties. After the mortgage, the plaintiffs filed the Title Suit No.58 of 1954. In the mortgage deed, it has clearly been stipulated that in case the defendant ever wanted to transfer by sell, the defendant no.5 should be given first preference and on his failure only, the property may be transferred to others. Subsequently, for legal necessity, the property was transferred to the defendant no.5 on 07.11.1962 and the defendant no.5 became absolute owner thereof. The Title Suit No.95 of 1962 filed on behalf of defendant no.1 for redemption has been dismissed. The plaintiff then filed Title Suit No.194 of 1962 for declaration that the sale deed in favour of the defendant no.5 is not Patna High Court FA No.65 of 1967 dt.27-03-2012 binding. The alleged agreement between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 dated 21.06.1962 is collusive, fraudulent and antedated document which is not binding on the defendant. All other allegations were denied.