Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 2222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
Madhuri Goswami Sarma W/o Jitu Sarma – Appellant
Versus
Alaka Dutta B. W/o Biren Dutta – Respondent
R.F.A. No. 71 of 2024
Decided On : 11-11-2025
For the Appellants : J.U. Ahmed, Z. Rahman, J. Ahmed, J. Yesmin
For the Respondents: D. Dutta, B. Konwar, M. Dutta
The failure of the defendants to explicitly deny claims in their written statement constituted acceptance of the plaintiff's assertions, allowing for a decree of specific performance despite claims of limitation.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Contractual obligations - Suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of land - Defendants failed to execute sale deed despite receiving full payment - The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff based on failure of defendants to properly deny claims, held by the court to signify acceptance of the plaintiff's assertions. (Paras 9, 10, 11)
(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 54 - Bar of limitation - Defendants claimed that the suit was barred by limitation, but the court found that the limitation period runs from when the plaintiff becomes aware of refusal to perform, allowing the suit to proceed. (Paras 18, 30)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiff entered into a sale agreement for land but defendants refused to execute final sale deed despite receiving a large portion of the payment. After multiple notices demanding action, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance.
Findings of Court:
The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff based on the defendants' evasive responses and failure to adequately deny the claims made against them.
Issues: Main issues included whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether the trial court was correct in proceeding without framing issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized a plaintiff's claims are accepted when not specifically denied; defendants’ failure to produce evidence necessitated the need for issues to be framed before judgment could have been passed.
Result: Appeal allowed; trial court decision set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties and nature of the case established. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. plaintiff's ownership agreement and actions against defendant. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. defendants' arguments and claims about noc involvement. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. trial court's reasonings on admissions and procedure. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. points for determination noted. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. defendants' arguments regarding trial process. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. legal arguments regarding the limitation period. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 8. plaintiff's rebuttal to defendants' claims. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 9. issues surrounding a deed of compromise discussed. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 10. execution and acknowledgment of the deed of compromise. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 11. conclusion and judgment of the court. (Para 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
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 01.0
