Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S.C. Das, J.
Raiharan Datta - Appellant
Versus
Parimal Chandra Baidya - Respondent
R.F.A. No. 01 of 2011Decided On : 24-07-2014
Specific Performance - Contract - Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - The judgment discusses the applicability of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in a suit for specific performance of a contract. It highlights the legal provisions and their interpretations in determining the validity of an unregistered agreement and the rights of bona fide purchasers.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought specific performance of a contract for the purchase of land from the defendant. The defendant refused to execute the sale deed and sold a portion of the land to other parties. The plaintiffs claimed that the sale to the other parties was a sham transaction to frustrate their agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suit, invoking Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and considering the rights of the bona fide purchasers. The appellate court found the agreement of sale to be valid and enforceable, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed for the remaining land and return the balance of the advance payment to the plaintiffs.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the agreement, the readiness of the plaintiffs to perform the contract, the rights of the bona fide purchasers, and the entitlement of the parties to relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the unregistered agreement of sale was admissible as evidence in a suit for specific performance. It emphasized the requirements of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the rights of bona fide purchasers.
Final Decision: The appellate court partly allowed the appeal, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed for the remaining land and return the balance of the advance payment to the plaintiffs.
JUDGMENT
S.C. Das, J.
1. This civil first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), South Tripura, Udaipur, incase No. T.S. 19 of 2009 whereunder the suit instituted by the plaintiffs for specific performance of contract with consequential relief has been dismissed. Heard learned Sr. counsel Mr. A.K. Bhowmik assisted by learned counsel Mr. R. Datta for the plaintiff appellants (herein-after mentioned as plaintiffs) and learned Sr. counsel Mr. S.M. Chakraborty assisted by learned counsel Mr. S. Bhattacharjee for the defendant-respondent No. (hereinafter mentioned as defendant No. 1) and learned counsel Mr. D.R. Chowdhury for the defendant-respondents No. 2 and 3 (hereinafter mentioned as defendants No. 2 and 3).
2. Let us first have a glimpse to the pleadings of the parties.
2.1 The plaintiffs' inter alia, contended that the suit land measuring .240 acres, described in the schedule of the plaint belonged to defendant No. 1 and the defendant while in urgent need of money in the last part of October, 2008 made a proposal to the plaintiffs to sell the suit land at a market price of 21,00,000/- and the plaintiffs agreed to the proposal to purchase the suit land. In terms of such oral agreement, the plaintiffs on 13.11.2008 along with 3(three) witnesses namely Haradhan Das, Swapan Kr. Chowdhury and Kamal Krishna Saha went to the house of the defendant No. 1 and an amount of 18,65,000/- was paid in cash as part of consideration money, out of the settled price of 21,00,000/- and an Advocate Clerk namely Tajir Islam was called who prepared an agreement in writing (computer typed) and the agreement was read by both side and it was also read over by the scribe Tajir Islam and thereafter the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 signed the said agreement in presence of witnesses Haradhan Das, Swapan Kr. Chowdhury and Kamal Krishna Saha. It was stipulated in the agreement that the defendant No. 1 will execute registered sale deed on receipt of the balance consideration money of 2,35,000/- within 7 months from the date of agreement. It is also stated by the plaintiffs that as per the agreement, the defendant No. 1 handed over physical possession of the suit land with the terms and conditions that the defendant No. 1 since has no other homestead will temporarily continue to reside on the suit land pending execution of the sale deed.
On 19.04.2009, the plaintiffs along with witness Swapan Kr. Chowdhury and Adhir Dey requested defendant No. 1 to receive the balance amount of 2,35,000/- in cash and to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs pursuant to agreement dated 13.11.2008 and to vacate the suit land but the defendant No. 1 refused to receive the balance consideration money and further demanded an amount of 3,00,000/- in addition to the agreed consideration of 21,00,000/- which the plaintiffs refused to agree. At that time, the defendant No. 1 told the plaintiffs to return the advance amount of 18,65,000/- and to hand over possession of the suit land to the defendant No. 1 to which the plaintiffs protested to such illegal demand of defendant No. 1 and the plaintiffs demanded a written document as regards the reason of his denial to execute and registration of the sale deed in terms of the agreement but the defendant No. 1 refused to give any written document. The plaintiffs duly fulfilled the condition of contract on their part and they were/are always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract by making payment of residue amount of 2,35,000/- as per the agreement dated 13.11.2008 but the defendant illegally violated the terms of contract on his part.
Finding no other alternative, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice through their Advocate Mr. Subhra Majumder on 24.04.2009 by registered post with A.D. to the defendant No. 1 asking the defendant No. 1 to execute sale deed rec
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
