Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 865 (JHR)

Jaideo Prasad v. Ravikant Sinha

2004-08-24

N.N.TIWARI

body2004
JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. This is the plaintiff appellants appeal against the judgment and decree of affirmance passed by the District Judge, Giridih inT.A. No. 18 of 1999. 2. The plaintiff filed a Title Suit No. 176 of 1997/1998 of 1999 in the Court of IVth Additional Munsif, Giridih praying relief for a direction to the defendant to accept the consideration amount and to execute registered sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. 3. The plaintiffs case, in brief, was that he was the owner of the suit property in respect of the plot No. 176 area 0.66-1/2 acres and plot No. 177 area 0.59 acres total area 1.25-1/2 acres under Khata No. 22 of village Mandra P.S. Gandey, District Giridih. The plaintiff was in need of Rs. 8000/- and as such he approached the defendant, who agreed to advance a sum of Rs. 8000/- on condition of executing the sale deed in respect of the suit land and tank in favour of the defendant. It was then agreed that defendant would execute an agreement for sale of the suit land and tank in favour of the plaintiff to execute sale deed in respect of the land and tank in favour of the plaintiff, if the plaintiff pays back the said amount of Rs. 8000/- to the defendant in the month of Magh within seven years from the date of the execution of the agreement for sale. Accordingly, the plaintiff executed a registered sale deed in respect of the suit land and tank on 8.3.1991 and the defendant executed registered agreement for sale on 8.3.1991 in favour of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he tendered Rs. 8,000/- to defendant on 31.1.1997 within seven years but the defendant refused to accept the money and execute the agreed sale deed. Hence the suit was filed, 4. Defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing a written statement. It was, interlia, contended that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff was never ready with money or willing to perform the contract on his part and the defendant all along requested the plaintiff to perform the contract on his part but the plaintiff all along deferred and did not perform his part of the contract rather he wanted to squeeze more money from the defendant. 5. 5. Oh the basis of the said pleadings several issues were framed. Issue No. IV was regarding the readiness and willingness to pay the consideration amount and issue No. VI was regarding the plaintiffs capacity to pay purchase money to the defendant. 6. The trial Court after discussing and considering the evidence on record decided both the issues in favour of the defendant. The trial Court also decided other issues against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred a regular appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Giridih being Title Appeal No. 18 of 1999. Before the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff challenged the finding of the trial Court particularly on issue Nos. Ill and IV. 8. The lower appellate Court also independently discussed the evidences and after appraising the same came to the finding that the plaintiff could not establish his case and concurred with the findings recorded by the trial Court. 9. Mr. Manjul Prasad learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Courts below have not discussed the evidence in detail and the judgment and decree of the Courts below are vitiated on that ground. He further submitted that the Courts below have not considered the reply of the notice given by the plaintiff which has been marked as Ext. 2. 10. From perusal of the judgment and decree of the Courts below I find that there are discussion of evidences and finding are based on consideration and due appraisal of the evidences. Findings on issues regarding readiness and willingness and the capacity to pay the consideration amount are findings of the facts which have been concurrently recorded against the plaintiff appellant. This Court cannot go into the sufficiency or insufficiency of evidences on which the said findings have been arrived at in exercise of jurisdiction Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any other infirmity giving rise to a substantial question of law to be framed and decided by this Court. 11. In that view I find no merit in this appeal It is accordingly dismissed.