Point of law: If once we accept the legal position that neither a contract for sale nor a decree passed on that basis for specific performance of the contract gives any right or title to the decree-holder and the right and the title passes to him only on the execution of the deed of sale either by the judgment-debtor himself or by the Court itself in case he fails to execute the sale deed, it is idle to contend that a valuable right had accrued to the petitioner merely because a decree has been passed for the specific performance of the contract. The limitation would start against the decree-holders only after they had obtained a sale in respect of the disputed property. It is, therefore, difficult to accept that a valuable right had accrued to the judgment debtor by lapse of time. Section 22 has been enacted only for the purpose of avoiding multiplicity of proceedings which the law courts always abhor.

ORDER :

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20/11/2019 passed by the Court of the Munsiff, Kamrup, Amingaon, Assam in Misc. (J) Case No. 83/2018 arising out of Title Execution No 4/2018, the petitioners are before this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. For the purpose of deciding the present lis, it would be relevant to take note of the factual background leading to the passing of the impugned order. The respondent herein had entered into an agreement dated 30/07/2006 with the petitioner No. 1 herein whereby it was agreed that the petitioner No. 1 would sell a plot of land measuring 2 bigha 2 katha 19 lechas to the respondent herein for a consideration of Rs. 1,29,500/-and out of which Rs. 75,000/-was paid as advance. Thereafter as the petitioner No. 1 did not execute the registered Deed of Sale in pursuance to the agreement dated 30/07/2006, for which the respondent herein as plaintiff instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 64/2009 before the Court of the Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup. While the said suit was pending, the petitioner No. 1 made transfer by way of 3 separate Deeds of Sale i.e. Deed No. 600/2009 dated 23/03/2009 in favour of the petitioner No.2 a plot of land measuring 2 katha 19 lechas; by a Deed of sale bearing Deed No. 602/2009 dated 23/3/2009 in favour of the petitioner No. 3 a plot of land measuring 1 bigha and vide another Deed of Sale bearing Deed No. 601/2009 dated 23/09/2009 in favour of the petitioner No. 4 and land admeasuring 1 bigha, in total vide the said 3 Deeds of sale, the land which was supposed to be sold to the respondent herein vide the agreement dated 30/7/2006 was transferred in favour of the petitioner No. 2,3 & 4 by the petitioner No. 1 during the pendency of the said suit. Accordingly, when the respondent had come to learn about the said transfer by way of sale sought for amendment of the plaint as regards the said subsequent events and the Trial Court permitted such amendment. The Defendant No. 1 who is the petitioner No. 1 herein in spite of receipt of summons did not appear and as such, the suit proceeded ex-parte. However, the defendant Nos. 2, 3 & 4 (the petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4herein) filed a joint written statement. At this stage in view of issue so raised during the course of hearing, it would be relevant to quote the Schedule of the amended plaint of Title Suit No. 64/2009, which is as under :-

“SCHEDULE

Land measuring 2 Bighas 2 Kathas 19 Lechas covered by Dag No. 87, K.P. Patta No. 443 of Village-Niz-Hajo under Mouza-Hajo, in the District of Kamrup, Assam, which is bounded by :

North : Gobat

South : Road

East : Gobinda Medhi

West : Dandi Ram Kalita

“SCHEDULE-A”

(d) Land measuring 2 Kathas 19 Lechas covered by Dag No. 87, K.P. Patta No. 443 of Village-Niz-Hajo under Mouza-Hajo, in the District of Kamrup, Assam, which is bounded by :

North : Gopanath

South : Road

East : Kushal Kalita

West : Seller’s Land.

(e) Land measuring 1 Bigha covered by Dag No. 87, K.P. Patta No. 443 of Village-Niz-Hajo under Mouza-Hajo, in the District of Kamrup, Assam, which is bounded by :

North : Nabin

South : Gobat

East : Road

West : Kushal Kalita

(f) Land measuring 1 Bigha covered by Dag No. 87, K.P. Patta No. 443 of Village-Niz-Hajo under Mouza-Hajo, in the District of Kamrup, Assam, which is bounded by :

North : Gobat

South : Anil Kalita

East : Anil Kalita

West : Gautam Kalita”

3. The Trial Court after framing of issues and the evidence having been led, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/respondent herein vide the judgment and decree dated 27/06/2011. Subsequently thereto admittedly an application was filed on 8/8/2011. A correction was carried out to the decree vide an order dated 23/8/2011. Pursuant to such correction the decree read as follows :-

It is order and decreed that the suit is decree ex-parte with cost against the defendant No-1 and on contest with cost against the vest defendants with the following relief (s) :-

(i) a decree declaring that the sale deed Nos. 600/09, 601/09 &