Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
The State of Tripura & Ors.- Petitioners
Vs.
Smti Rajasree Sinha & Ors.- Respondent
CRP NO. 55 OF 2015
Decided On : 31-05-2016
Section 115 - Challenge to rejection of objection under Section 47 of CPC - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 47 of CPC, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Section 5, 7), Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Section 29) - The court discussed the applicability of Section 47 of CPC, the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The interpretation of Section 29 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was a key point of consideration, emphasizing the obligations and liabilities of the Government as an heir and its role in executing the sale deed.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the execution of a sale deed for a decreetal land. The petitioners objected to the executability of the decree, citing that the State, as the legal heir of the deceased, had no authority to execute the sale deed. The respondent had obtained a decree for the sale deed and sought its execution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the objection questioning the executability of the decree was unfounded. It held that the Government, as an heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was obligated to execute the sale deed in accordance with the terms of the agreement to sale.
Issues: The key issues included the authority of the State to execute the sale deed, the applicability of Section 47 of CPC, and the obligations of the Government as an heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the obligations and liabilities of the Government as an heir under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and held that the objection raised by the petitioners was without merit.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the court found no infirmity in the impugned order. No costs were awarded in the circumstances.
By means of this revisional application filed under Section 115 of the CPC, the order dated 17.12.2014 delivered in Misc.(Ex) No.6 of 2014 has been called in question. The said Misc.(Ex) No.6 of 2014 has arisen from Title Execution Case No.10 of 2013. To be precise, the objection under Section 47 of the CPC filed by the petitioners herein (the JDs No.5 and 6) has been registered as Misc. (Ex) No.6 of 2014. By the impugned order dated 17.12.2014, the said objection has been rejected.
2. The short fact that may be essential to appreciate the challenge as laid by this petition is that one Anukul Chandra Saha entered into an agreement for sale of the decreetal land on 04.08.2009 with the decree-holder, the respondent No.1. The consideration was settled at Rs.4,00,000/-and a sum of Rs.3,50.000/-was received by Anukul Chandra Saha as the earnest money at the time of executing the said agreement to sale. It was agreed that on payment of the remainder i.e. Rs.50,000/-, Anukul Chandra Saha would execute the sale deed. Suddenly, Anukul Chandra Saha died on 15.09.2009 before the expiry of the said 3(three) months. Since Anukul Chandra Saha had no descendants or legal heirs, one local club had hung a sign board on the suit land. According to the decree-holder, the said step was taken to deprive her. As a result, the respondent No.1 filed the suit, being Title Suit No.91 of 2009 against the petitioners and the respondents No.2, 3 and 4.
3. The petitioners herein by filing the written statement have contended that the State was not a party in the agreement and as such the State had no objection in executing any sale deed. Moreover, Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the transaction must be inter vivos. Section 5 of The Transfer of Property Act does not include the State within the meaning of 'living person'. However, living person includes a company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, but nothing by sweep a 'living person' shall include the State and hence the State does not have the authority to transfer any property to any individual in terms of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and thus the State is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. However, Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has fairly admitted that the suit has been decreed pursuant to the judgment dated 13.02.2013 in the following terms:
“i. In the result the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff on contest. The plaintiff is entitled to get a registered sale deed for the suit land specifically described in the schedule on accepting balance amount of Rs.50,000/-by the defendant No.5.
ii. The defendant No.6 is accordingly, directed to execute a necessary sale deed for the suit land in favour of the plaintiff after receiving the said amount of Rs.50,000/-from the plaintiff within two months from the date of passing of this judgment. In case the defendant No.6 does not execute the sale deed, within the said period after receipt of the balance amount of Rs.50,000/-plaintiff be entitled to get the sale deed executed in his favour by this court for the suit land.
iii. Defendants No.1 to 3 are directed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit land to the plaintiff.
iv. Cost of the suit are to be borne by the parties of their own.”
4. It is also admitted that none of the defendants including the petitioners herein preferred an appeal against the said judgment or the decree. Since the petitioner No.2, the defendant No.6 in the suit did not execute the sale deed on receipt the remainder of the consideration amounting to Rs.50,000/-from the plaintiff (the respondent No.1) herein within 2(two) months from the date of passing of the judgment, the plaintiff put the decree for execution by filing an appropriate application being Title(Execution) Case No.10 of 2013. In the said case the petitioners filed objection under Section 47 of th
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
