Back
2015 Supreme(Gau) 318
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
A.K. GOSWAMI, J.
HIMAI SAIKIA & ORS – Appellant
Vs
GOLAP TAMULY & ORS – Respondents
RSA 51/2001
Decided On : 27.05.2015
An agreement for re-conveyance need not be signed by both parties and can be enforced in law based on the contents of the document, as interpreted in the case of Mohar Ali (supra).
Headnote:
Specific Relief Act - Agreement for re-conveyance - Section 20 - Ext.-2 - Mohar Ali (supra) - [LAND DISPUTE] - [Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act] - The court discussed the validity of Ext.-2, a document executed by the defendant for re-conveyance of land, and relied on the interpretation of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act as established in the case of Mohar Ali (supra) to determine that such a document need not be signed by both parties and can be enforced in law.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sold land to the defendant and entered into an agreement for re-conveyance. Dispute arose regarding the validity of the agreement, as the original deed of re-conveyance was torn up and the defendant denied its existence.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the agreement unenforceable due to absence of a valid and enforceable contract. The first appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the agreement was valid and enforceable based on Ext.-2 and the recitals therein.
Issues: Validity of the agreement for re-conveyance, enforceability of Ext.-2, and requirement of signatures from both parties in the agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act as established in the case of Mohar Ali (supra) to determine that an agreement for re-conveyance need not be signed by both parties and can be enforced in law based on the contents of the document.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the substantial questions of law were answered against the appellant.
This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Golaghat, in Title Appeal No. 6/99 reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.09.99 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division No. 2, Golaghat, in Title Suit No. 13/92.
2. This Second Appeal was admitted to be heard by an order dated 20.07.2001 on the following substantial questions of law:
(i) Whether the First Appellate Court wrongly exercised and invoked the power under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act in decreeing the suit ignoring and overlooking the agreement made by the parties?
(ii) Whether the learned First Appellate Court committed error in acting on Ext.-2 agreement in the absence of the original document?
3. This case was initially heard on 18.05.2015 when Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel for the appellants had advanced some arguments. Today, I have heard Mr. A. Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. P. K. Kalita, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs.
4. The pleaded case of the plaintiffs is that out of 8 Bigha 12 Lecha of land, covered by Dag No. 900 of Patta No. 40, owned and possessed by the plaintiffs, they sold 6 Bigha 12 Lecha of land to the defendant, Dandadhar Saikia, for consideration amount of Rs. 5,000/- by executing a registered deed of sale on 10.05.82. Another agreement was executed by the defendant on that very day for re-conveyance of the said land in favour of the plaintiffs/vendor on receipt of consideration amount of Rs. 5,000/-. Subsequently, the plaintiffs received another sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the defendant and a fresh deed of agreement was made on 14.05.85 by superseding the earlier one. According to the said fresh deed of agreement, on receipt of a sum of Rs. 10,000/- within the period commencing from 6th year and before expiry of 7 years from the date of agreement for re-conveyance, the defendant would re-convey the land to the plaintiffs by executing a registered deed of sale and would deliver possession of the same to the plaintiffs. In the agreement dated 14.05.85, however, there was a clerical mistake in quoting the Sale Deed No. 1547 instead of 1567.
5. A pleader’s notice was issued on 24.12.91 asking the defendant to accept the sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiffs within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice and to re-convey the suit land.
6. By filing written statement, the defendant denied execution of any deed of agreement on 10.05.82 for re-transfer of the suit land to the plaintiffs. He also denied execution of another deed of agreement on 14.05.85 by cancelling the earlier one on receipt of Rs. 5,000/- more as averred in the plaint. The original defendant having died, the substituted defendants also filed written statement. In the said written statement, they also denied execution of any agreement for re-conveyance. They also denied execution of any fresh agreement on 14.05.85.
7. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:
(i) Whether there is cause of action for the suit?
(ii) Whether there was any agreement of re-conveyance of suit land by defendant in favour of the plaintiff?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to obtain the relief as prayed for in the plaint?
(iv) To what any other relief or reliefs the parties are entitled?
8. The plaintiffs examined 4 witnesses including the scribe of the deed of agreement dated 14.05.85 as PW3. The defendant examined 3 witnesses, who are all sons of the original defendant. The plaintiffs exhibited 7 documents. The agreement dated 14.05.85 was exhibited as Ext.-2. It appears from the evidence on record that the agreement dated 10.05.82, i.e., the agreement which is stated to be the deed of re-conveyance executed by the defendant on the date of execution of the said sale deed, was torn up by the scribe of the said deed, Bapuram Dutta, after the fresh agre
