This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29-3-1974 and 2-4-1974 respectively passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Tripura at Agartala in Title Suit No. 22 of 1973. On 3.4.1970, the appellant-defendant executed an agreement (Exhibit-1) in favour of the respondent-plaintiff by which the appellant agreed to sell a part of his homestead situated at Banamalipur for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the respondent and also accepted a sum of Rs. 500/- as earnest money. It was further agreed that necessary deed would be executed in the first part of the following month on receipt of the balance amount of consideration. It is alleged that plaintiff-respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and as the appellant did not perform he part, on 17.4.1970 the respondent issued a registered notice through his Advocate. As the appellant did not execute the sale deed after taking the balance of the consideration money, the present suit was filed praying for a decree for specific performance of the said agree­ment and also for possession.

2. Prior to the filing of the present suit, the brother of the appellant filed a suit against both the appellant and respon­dent and the said suit was registered as Title Suit No. 10 of 1970. The suit was decreed against both the appellant and res­pondent and an injunction was issued restraining the appellant from allowing respondent to enter the suit property and res­pondent was also restrained from interfering and disturbing the possession of the plaintiff of that suit, Sri Amarendra Mukherjee. Amarendra Mukherjee is the brother of the present appellant. The said suit was filed in respect of the joint dwelling house belonging to the undivided family of said Amarendra Mukherjee, his brother, the present appellant and their aunt. From the judgment of the said suit (exhibit-A) it transpires that the pre­sent appellant was unwilling to sell his share of the undivided property to his brother, the plaintiff of that suit, Amarendra Mukherjee or to his aunt Smti. Nihar kana Debi, pre-defendant No. 3 of the said suit and instead was trying to sell the property to a outsider viz. the present respondent and hence the suit was filed.

3. Present suit was contested by the appellant who denied the allegations that the respondent offered the balance considera­tion money though he admitted the receipt of the registered notice. The appellant also stated that he was willing to per­form his part of agreement, but he could not do so in view of the perpetual injunction granted in the above Title Suit No. 10 of 1970.

4. On the pleadings, the learned trial court framed as many as 5 issues and ultimately decreed the suit. However, the learned trial court refused to grant decree for khas possession and hence this appeal.

5. There is no dispute that the agreement for sale was in respect of a part of the dwelling house belonging to an un-divided family and that present appellant agreed to execute the agreement of sale with the respondent, who is a stranger.

It is also not disputed that there was no partition of the pro­perty in question. The parties are also governed by Hindu Succession Act, 1956. From the judgment (exhibit-A), I find that originally the land was taken on settlement by the hus­band of the Pro-defendant No. 3 of the suit i.e. the uncle of the two brothers from the then Maharaja, Tripura and there­after the land devolved upon the appellant, his brother Amarendra Mukherjee and their aunt Smti. Nihar Kana Debt.

6. Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 inter alia, provides that an intercept in any immovable property of an intes­tate devolves upon two or more heirs and anyone of such heirs proposes to transfer his or her interest in the said property, the other heirs shall have a preferential right to acquire the interest proposed to be transferred. In the instant case as stated earlier though the brother of the appellant, Amarandra Mukherjee acquired a preferential right t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document