Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1765
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
Subhash Chandra Brahma S/o Late Segandra Brahma – Appellant
Versus
Madhab Karki S/o Padam Bahadur Karki – Respondent
R.F.A. No. 35 of 2023
Decided On : 13-10-2025
For the Appellants : S.C. Biswas, A. Ikbal, S. Siddiqua, M. Nath, P.S. Biswas
For the Respondents: S.K. Ghosh, F. Ahmed
The court emphasized that an issue of limitation must be framed and adjudicated in specific performance cases, impacting the outcome of the appeal.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, Section 96 - Specific Performance of Contract - The trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, directing the defendant to execute a registered sale deed for the property upon payment of the remaining consideration amount, finding the plaintiff was willing and had made payments totalling Rs. 23,50,000/- towards the sale consideration. The defendant, however, claimed that the sale was barred under tribal regulations and alleged that the plaintiff failed to file the suit within the limitation period. (Paras 6, 12, 20)
(B) Limitation - The court specifically pointed out that the trial court failed to frame an issue regarding the limitation, prejudicing the defendant's right. The appeal court, therefore, decided to remand the case to the trial court to properly address the points concerning limitation and the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff. (Paras 11, 19)
Facts of the case:
The defendant agreed to sell land to the plaintiff for Rs. 33,00,000/- and received partial payments but later refused to complete the sale. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance, claiming readiness to pay the balance amount.
Findings of Court:
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff without adequately addressing the critical issue of limitation and the plaintiff's readiness as required for specific performance.
Issues: The court addressed whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether the plaintiff had demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform the contract.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court found substantial grounds for remanding the case due to the trial court's oversight on the limitation issue, which is fundamental to the adjudication of the matter, thereby ensuring that both parties are given an opportunity to be heard on this point.
Result: Impugned judgment and decree set aside; matter remanded for fresh adjudication on the additional issue of limitation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing of the case by both parties. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. overview of the judgment relating to a land sale. (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. appellant's objections to trial court's ruling. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's duty regarding issues of limitation. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 19) |
| 5. set aside previous ruling; remand for reconsideration. (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
ROBIN PHUKAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. A. Ikbal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. This Regular First Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 29.05.2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Chirang, in Title Suit No. 47/2019.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned Judgment and Decree, dated 29.05.2023, the learned Civil Judge, Chirang (Trial Court for short) has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/respondent herein, with the following directions:
(i) The plaintiff is to deposit the balance amount of consideration of Rs. 18,00,000/- only in the Court, within 90 days from the date of judgment.
(ii) The defendant thereafter executes the registered Sale deed within 15 days from the date of deposit of the money by the plaintiff in the Court.
(iii) The defendant shall hand over possession of the suit land to the plaintiff after receipt of the balance consideration money as agreed earlier by both the parties.
4. For the sake of convenience and in order to avoid confusion, the status of the parties, as reflected in the Title Suit; is attached herein.
5. The background facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, are briefly stated as under:
“The defendant, in Title Suit No. 47/2019, is the owner and possessor of a plot of land, measuring 01 Bigha, 02 Katha, 10 Lechas, covered by Dag No. 70, of Myadi Patta No. 27, situated in village-Baikhungaon, under the Sidli Revenue Circle, P.S.- Dhaligaon, Dist-Chirang (BTAD), which is the subject matter of the present suit. With a view to sell the abovementioned plot of land, the defendant approached the plaintiff, sometime in the month of October, 2014, on account of his necessity of funds. The plaintiff then agreed to purchase the land and after discussion and mutual talks, the sale consideration was fixed @ Rs. 33,00,000/- and the plaintiff agreed to pay the same.
Thereafter, one ‘Baina Patra’ was executed by the plaintiff and the defendant on 03.11.2014, wherein, the plaintiff had paid the defendant an advance of Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash and wherein, both the defendant and the plaintiff, along with the witnesses; had put their signatures.
Thereafter, on 27.01.2015, the plaintiff and the defendant again entered into one Deed of Mutual Agreement, which was notarized on 27.01.2015; for selling of the schedule suit land and as per the terms and conditions of the said Deed of Mutual Agreement, a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was paid in cash by the plaintiff to the defendant on the same date and he received the acknowledgment for the same; and the defendant had put his signature in the Deed of Mutual Agreement in presence of witnesses and the defendant had acknowledged the receipt of total advance payment of a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- from the plaintiff. As per terms and conditions of the said Deed of Mutual Agreement, dated 27.01.2015, it has been agreed upon that on receipt of the remaining balance consideration money, the defendant will be legally bound to complete and execute the registration of sale deed, in respect of the schedule suit land, in favour of the plaintiff, or otherwise, necessary steps for registration of sale deed in respect of selling of the schedule suit land would be executed by the defendant, as soon as the required sale permission from the competent authority is obtained by the defendant; and it is also clearly mentioned in para 3 of the notarized Deed of Mutual Agreement, that the defendant has already started the process for procuring necessary permission/NOC from the concerned BTAD, Administration and after getting the necessary permission/NOC, the defendan
