Fraudulent misrepresentation by a seller regarding land ownership constitutes grounds for recovery of paid consideration under the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. U.K. Das, learned counsel for the Appellant. Also heard Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the Caveator/sole respondent.

2. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of the Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the appellant, Shri Hemanta Talukdar, impugning the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2023, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barpeta, in Money Appeal No. 01/2023, whereby the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2022, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Barpeta, in Money Suit No. 04/2016, was affirmed.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant Second Appeal, in brief, are as follows:

(i) The respondent, Shri Bhabesh Kalita, as plaintiff, had instituted a suit against the appellant/defendant, before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Barpeta, which was registered as Money Suit No. 4/2016.

(ii) The respondent/plaintiff had stated in his plaint that he and the present appellant were childhood friends and they maintain a good relationship. The respondent/plaintiff had stated that he was looking for buying a plot of land at Guwahati and the appellant/defendant approached the respondent/plaintiff and offered him to sell a plot of land measuring 3 Kathas at Barbari in Upper Hengrabari, Guwahati.

(iii) It is averred by the respondent/plaintiff in the plaint that on 25.12.2012, he visited the aforesaid plot of land at Barbari, Guwahati along with the appellant/defendant and the appellant showed him the 3 Kathas of land and told him that he has possession as well as the title over the aforesaid land. The respondent/plaintiff pleaded that thereafter, they negotiated the price of the land and accordingly, the respondent/plaintiff paid Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) to the appellant/defendant on 12.12.2013 by way of three cheques bearing cheque number 109053, 109054 and 109055 dated 16.02.2013, which were encashed by the appellant/defendant.

(iv) The respondent/plaintiff has also pleaded in his plaint that on 05.03.2014 he visited the said plot of land at Barbari, Guwahati and started to take measurement of the said land but some persons of the locality came and offered resistance and threatened him. Those persons told him that the said land does not belong to the appellant/defendant.

(v) When the respondent/plaintiff approached the appellant/defendant, he assured him that there might be some misunderstanding and that land belongs to him. However, the respondent/plaintiff made some enquiries with the concerned authorities and came to know that the appellant/defendant is not the owner of the said plot of land and he had no authority or control over the said land.

(vi) The respondent/plaintiff has also stated in his plaint that the appellant/defendant had cheated him and committed fraud on him as the appellant/defendant knew all along that he was not the owner of the said plot of land, but in spite of that he projected himself as owner of the land and took Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) from the respondent/plaintiff against the said land.

(vii) Hence, the respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid Money Suit praying for realisation of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) from the appellant/defendant and also sought for a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- from him.

(viii) The appellant/defendant appeared before the Trial Court and contested the suit by filing a written statement. He had pleaded, in his written statement, that he was in possession over the plot of land measuring 1 Kathas 10 Lechas at Barbari since the year 1990 and had applied before the concerned Revenue Authorities for allotment of aforesaid land in his favour on 08.11.2006. He has also stated in his written statement that the plaintiff knew very well the status of the land and the fact that the appellant/defendant had only possessory right over the said land.

(ix) It is also stated in the written statement that the respondent/plaintiff knew very well that the land in question was not allotte