JUDGMENT : By the Court:-Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This second appeal has been preferred under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree of reversal dated 12.10.2018 passed by the learned District Judge-I, Khunti in Civil Appeal (Title Appeal) No.94 of 2009 whereby and where under, the learned first appellate court set aside the judgment of the trial court being the Munsif, Civil Court Khunti passed in Title Suit No. 07 of 2008 dated 19.05.2009 whereby and where under, the learned Munsif, Khunti decreed the suit on contest and directed the defendant no.1 to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff within 60 days from the date of such judgment and allowed the appeal on contest. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 07 of 2008 with a prayer for specific performance of the agreement in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 with respect of the suit land and direct the defendant no.1 to execute and register the deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the lands in suit within a time to be fixed by the court failing which the deed of sale be executed and registered through the process of court and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land be confirmed and in case, the plaintiff is not found in possession of the suit land, decree for recovery of possession be passed and the plaintiff be put in khas possession and additional prayer of permanent injunction restraining the defendant no.1 from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land. Cost of the suit and other relief was prayed for. 4. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the defendant no.1 was the owner of 14.5 decimals of land of which the suit land is exactly half being 7 ¼ decimals of land. The defendant no.1 executed a sale deed after permission of the same was accorded by the S.D.O., Khunti under Section 46 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act in respect of the rest half out of 14.5 decimals of land including the suit land which was owned by the defendant no.1 by a registered sale deed dated 23.12.2002. The defendant no.1 executed a sale deed after permission of the same was accorded by the S.D.O., Khunti under Section 46 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act in respect of the rest half out of 14.5 decimals of land including the suit land which was owned by the defendant no.1 by a registered sale deed dated 23.12.2002. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 promised to execute and get registered sale deed with respect to the said land also on receipt of consideration money of Rs.30,000/-which was also paid by the plaintiff to the defendant no.1. The plaintiff also paid Rs.35,975/-on 25.11.2007 under receipt granted by the defendant no.1. The plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff has paid the entire consideration amount for 14.5 decimals of land amounting to Rs.65,975/-to the defendant no.1 but the defendant no.1 went on evading execution of the sale deed on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff has constructed rooms and other substantial construction over the suit land by investing quite and large sum of money. The defendant no.1 filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 1 of 2008 for eviction of the plaintiff from the suit land claiming that the plaintiff has been inducted as a tenant over the suit land by the defendant no.1 even though the plaintiff all along was ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit. 5. The defendant no.1 in his written statement challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds and denied the entire averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint. The defendant no.1 took the specific plea that he inducted the plaintiff as a tenant even though the plaintiff is not a resident of Torpa police station. The defendant no.1 pleaded that the plaintiff taking advantage of the simplicity of the defendant no.1 in collusion with her husband brought the defendant no.1 to Khunti on 17.12.2002 and made him sign a blank application, which signature was used as signature on the application under Section 46 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. The plaintiff also obtained signature of the defendant no.1 on several blank papers. The plaintiff also obtained signature of the defendant no.1 on several blank papers. The plaintiff did not pay the consideration amount of the sale deed executed by the defendant no.1 for the remaining 7.25 decimals of land out of 14.5 decimals of land owned by the defendant no.1 and pleaded that this suit is a counter blast to the Title (Eviction) Suit No.1 of 2008 filed by the defendant no.1. 6. On the basis of rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court settled the following nine issues:- (i) Whether the suit as such framed is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? (iii) Whether the suit is barred by provisions u/s 32 & 34 of Specific Relief Act and any provisions under CNT Act? (iv) Whether the suit is barred by law of waiver, acquiescence or estoppel? (v) Whether the defendant no.1 had entered into an agreement to sale the suit land as mentioned in schedule of the plaint bearing R.S. plot no. 2744 under khata no.26 Village-Torpa and other lands bearing area of 14 ½ decimals with the plaintiff of this case? (vi) Whether in consequence of such agreement, defendant had given application u/s 46 C.N.T. Act for entire land of 14 ½ decimals under his full knowledge? (vii) Whether the plaintiff has obtained possession over the suit land in consequence of the terms of said agreement? (viii) Whether the plaintiff has shown readiness and willingness to perform the terms of said agreement, as such agreed between the parties? (ix) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as such claimed or any other relief or reliefs? 7. In support of her case, the plaintiff examined altogether four witnesses and proved documents which have been marked Ext. 1 to Ext. 4. On the other hand, from the side of the defendants two witnesses were examined and the defendants also proved the documents which have been marked Ext. A to Ext. C. 8. The learned trial court first took up issue nos. 1 to Ext. 4. On the other hand, from the side of the defendants two witnesses were examined and the defendants also proved the documents which have been marked Ext. A to Ext. C. 8. The learned trial court first took up issue nos. (v), (vi) and (vii) together and considering the evidence in the record came to the conclusion that there was an agreement in the year 1997 between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 and in terms of that agreement, the defendant no.1 submitted his application under Section 46 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act for permission and after such permission, the defendant no.1 has executed sale deed in respect of 7.25 decimals of land out of 14.5 decimals of land owned by him, which are not the suit property and the plaintiff has made several construction over the said land and is possessing the same and answered the issue nos. (v), (vi) and (vii) in favour of the plaintiff. The learned trial court next took up issue no. (viii) and after considering the evidence in the record that since the plaintiff has led evidence that the plaintiff has already paid the entire consideration amount to the defendant no.1 so the learned trial court answered the issue no. (viii) in favour of the plaintiff. The learned trial court next took up issue nos. (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (ix) together and disposed of the issue nos. (ii), (iii) and (iv) in the negative as no evidence was led by the parties and in view of its finding in respect to the issue nos. (v) to (viii) the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for in the suit and decreed the suit of the plaintiff as already indicated above. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the defendant no.1 filed Civil Appeal (Title Appeal) No.94 of 2009 in the court of Principal District Judge, Khunti which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment and decree. 10. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court, the defendant no.1 filed Civil Appeal (Title Appeal) No.94 of 2009 in the court of Principal District Judge, Khunti which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court by the impugned judgment and decree. 10. The learned first appellate court on the basis of the materials in the record and the submissions before it, formulated the following four points for determination:- (i) Whether there was/is any valid agreement subsist between the parties regarding sale of schedule plot as mentioned in the plaint of the suit? (ii) Whether the land as such mentioned in schedule of the plaint being land of schedule tribe, so valid legal permission which is required u/s 46 C.N.T. Act has been or duly obtained by the vendor i.e. defendant/appellant to sale such portion of land by the competent authority? (iii) Whether the respondents have been able to prove their readiness and willingness to comply the terms of alleged agreement of year 1997, as such mentioned in the plaint of the suit? (iv) Whether the respondent/plaintiff had established her possession over the suit land in consequence of such agreement, as such mentioned in the plaint? 11. The learned first appellate court relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Brij Mohan & Ors. vs. Sugra Begum & Ors. reported in (1990) 4 SCC 147 , wherein inter alia it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that when the plaintiff seeks specific performance of an oral agreement of sale of an immovable property, heavy burden lies upon the plaintiff to prove firstly that there was consensus ad idem between the parties and secondly such oral agreement for sale was concluded and considering the facts of this case where the plaintiff pleaded that there was an oral agreement of sale of 14.5 decimals of land at the rate of Rs.5,000/-per decimal but Ext.1 and Ext.1/A as also Ext. C shows that the plaintiff purchased the land of 7.25 decimals after payment of 65,975/-which shows that there was no consensus ad idem between the parties and thereby the contract has not been concluded. The learned first appellate court also considered Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as it stood prior to its amendment by Act 18 of 2018. The learned first appellate court also considered Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as it stood prior to its amendment by Act 18 of 2018. The learned first appellate court also considered that under Section 46 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, it is the Deputy Commissioner who is the competent person to accord sanction for transfer of land by a member of scheduled tribe in favour of someone and the purchaser must be a resident of the same village. The learned first appellate court referred to the deposition of the plaintiff who was examined as P.W.1 and in paragraph nos. 20 and 21 of her deposition she has stated that she is the resident of Jamtoli in the district of Gumla and her parental house is also at village-Chitapiri in Gumla district whereas the suit is situated under Torpa P.S. in the district of Khunti. So the plaintiff was not competent to purchase the land being not a resident of Torpa police station of which the defendant no.1 has been a resident. The learned first appellate court also considered that the plaintiff has failed to express her readiness and willingness to perform her part of the agreement. The learned first appellate Court took note of the fact that in Ext. C which is the certified copy of the sale deed, there is no reference of any oral agreement for sale between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 nor there is any evidence to show that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement nor there is any evidence as to when the plaintiff requested the defendant no.1 to execute the sale deed in her favour and admittedly the suit was filed only after the defendant no.1 filed Title (Eviction) Suit No. 1 of 2008 against the plaintiff and went on to hold that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in Title Suit No. 07 of 2008 is fit to be set aside and allowed the appeal. 12. 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned first appellate court committed a perversity by holding that the S.D.O., Khunti had no jurisdiction to grant permission for transfer of the land by the defendant no.1 in favour of the plaintiff in terms of Section 46 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act vide R.M. Case No. 213 of 2002-03 even though the same was not challenged by the defendant. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned first appellate court has misconstrued and misinterpreted the evidence in the record. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court being not sustainable in law be set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court be restored. 13. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the basis of the suit is an oral agreement for sale purportedly entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 has categorically denied any such oral agreement. The plaintiff has not mentioned as to when such oral agreement was entered into between the parties. The plaintiff has not mentioned anywhere as to how the plaintiff came in possession over the suit land. The plaintiff has not mentioned as to what were the terms and conditions of the contract even though it was an oral contract; so no document was there. It is a settled principle of law that in a case where the plaintiff comes forward to seek a decree for specific performance of contract of sale of an immovable property on the basis of the oral agreement alone, heavy burden lies on him to prove that there was a consensus ad idem between the parties and there was a concluded oral agreement for sale of immovable property. 14. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any fault on the part of the learned first appellate court in arriving at the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish that there was consensus ad idem between the parties and thereby the contract was a concluded one. 14. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any fault on the part of the learned first appellate court in arriving at the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish that there was consensus ad idem between the parties and thereby the contract was a concluded one. Otherwise also, keeping in view the requirement of Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act though the plaintiff pleaded that the plaintiff is a resident under Torpa police station of Khunti District but her categorical admission in paragraph nos. 20 and 21 of her deposition as P.W.1 that she is the resident of Village-Jamtoli in the district of Gumla and her parents’ house is also in the district of Gumla in Village-Chitapiri, contradicts her own averment made in the plaint that she was a resident under Torpa police station when it is the categorical averment of the defendant no.1 in his written statement that the plaintiff was not the resident under Torpa police station; when the undisputed requirement of law is that the plaintiff must be a resident of the same village as that of the defendant no.1, for a valid sale to be effected by the defendant no.1. 15. Under such circumstances, this Court finds that there is absolutely no perversity in the finding of fact arrived at by the learned first appellate court that the plaintiff has failed to establish consensus ad idem between the parties and that the contract between the parties was a concluded one and as such finding of fact has not been arrived at by excluding any admissible evidence or considering any inadmissible evidence nor such finding of facts arrived at by the learned first appellate court can be termed as outrageously defying any logic so as to incur the blame of being perverse. 16. 16. So in the absence of any concluded contract and that the plaintiff admittedly is not a resident of Torpa P.S. as has categorically admitted by her in paragraph nos.20 and 21 of her deposition as P.W.1 and whether the S.D.O., Khunti was competent to exercise the power under Section 46 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 about which there is neither any pleading nor any evidence, is irrelevant because otherwise also, the plaintiff having failed to plead and prove as to when the oral agreement was made between the parties and what were the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of specific performance of contract. 17. In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 18. Accordingly, this second appeal being without any merit is dismissed but under the circumstances without any costs. 19. Let the copy of the Judgment be sent to the learned court below forthwith.