The court reaffirmed the necessity for framing issues and allowing parties to present evidence, emphasizing the principle of non-traversal for claims not explicitly denied.

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER :

SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.

1. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup (M), in connection with Title Suit No. 690/2022, decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.

2. The appellants, (i) Madhuri Goswami Sarma, (ii) Aman Ulla, (iii) Joynal Abdin, and (iv) Md. Rahul Ali were the defendants and the proforma defendants arrayed in the title suit, whereas the respondent was the plaintiff of the original title suit. The appellants herein will be referred to as the defendants, whereas the respondent shall be referred to as the plaintiff.

Case of the Plaintiff:-

3. The plaintiff brought up this title suit, contending inter alia that the plaintiff entered into an agreement for sale with defendant No.1, Madhuri Goswami Sarma for a parcel of land admeasuring 1 Katha 10 Lechas appertaining to Dag No. 678(old)/1682(new) of K.P. Patta No. 46(old)/55(new). The agreement was for a sale consideration of Rs. 30 Lacs on 01.05.2013, and the plaintiff had already paid Rs. 10,00,000/- on the day of the execution of the agreement to the defendant. Despite receiving Rs. 29,90,000/-, out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 30 Lacs on various dates, the defendant No. 1 failed to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, in violation of the agreed terms and conditions of the contract.

4. It is contended that the defendant on several pretexts kept delaying to perform her part of the contract. However, in the month of September 2019, the plaintiff found out that the application for sale permission before the ADC was rejected. The plaintiff took action and sent several Advocate notices on 01.07.2022, 18.07.2022 and 02.08.2022, demanding that the defendant execute the final sale deed within 15 days from the receipt of notice.

5. It is averred that despite admitting the execution of the agreement for sale and receipt of the amount, the defendant refused to execute the final sale deed, expressing a desire to refund the advance payment. The defendants have also executed an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of Aman Ulla, illegally trying to alienate the suit property. Aman Ulla is arrayed as proforma defendant No. 2. On 16.11.2022, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant, in pursuance of the power of attorney, illegally executed an agreement for sale for the same plot of land, vide deed No. 21419 dated 28.09.2022, in favour of the proforma defendants, Joynal Abdin and Md. Rahul Ali with respect to the suit property. The plaintiff was impelled to bring up the suit for specific performance of contract.

Case of the Defendants:-

6. The defendants have jointly filed a written statement. It is contended by the defendants that in Clause-7 of the initial agreement dated 01.05.2013, it was provided that at the time of handing over possession of the property, the same shall be demarcated and measured, but the concerned authorities subsequently raised question on demarcation before issuance of land sale permission/NOC, and there was a delay in obtaining the NOC. The defendants cannot be held responsible for the delay in obtaining the NOC. No written limit was specified in the agreement dated 01.05.2013, but it was verbally agreed upon by both the parties that the final sale deed shall be executed and registered within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the NOC. Immediately after receipt of the NOC,