The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the law as enunciated in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another v. Indusind Bank Ltd. and others reported in AIR 2005 SC 439, and the application of the Indian Contract Act in determining the existence of a contract to sale and the rights of the parties in relation to possession of the suit land.

Heard Mr. D.R. Choudhury and Mr. S. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. Both these appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC being RSA No.17 of 2012 and RSA No.18 of 2012 are clustered for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as RSA No.17 of 2012 which has emerged from Title Suit No.10 of 2009 and RSA No.18 of 2012 which has emerged from the Title Suit (Counter Claim) No.28 of 2009 are closely interlinked. It is to be noted at this juncture that Title Suit (Counter Claim) No.28 of 2009 is the offshoot of the Title Suit No.10 of 2009.

3. The respondents herein instituted the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit land on eviction of the defendants, the appellants, in both RSA No.17 of 2012 and RSA No.18 of 2012. The plaintiffs’ case in brief is that they inherited the suit property as the legal heirs of Sri Umesh Chandra Chowdhury who purchased the suit property jointly with his brothers by two separate deeds in different years i.e. 1950 and 1951 from Imtiaz Ali, Mouras Bibi and others. Thereafter, the plaintiffs' predecessors as stated took over possession. In view of that possession the revenue records by way of mutation was created in their favour. Subsequently, the predecessor of the plaintiffs and the other co-purchaser separated the property amicably by a registered partition deed. After demise of Umesh Chandra Chowdhury, the father of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs and their mother succeeded to the suit property and accordingly revenue the records were mutated in their favour. The plaintiffs have also disclosed that about 30(thirty) years back Chitta Ranjan Suklabaidya, the father of the defendants approached Umesh Chandra Choudhury for permission to use the suit land for purpose of setting up a laundry and house for their living and as the predecessor had his trust in him he permitted the defendants' predecessor to possess that land with condition that the land shall be handed over on demand. The plaintiffs have also admitted that after death of Chitta Ranjan Suklabaidya his sons and daughters or the heirs continued to possess the suit land and they were carrying on the laundry and there was no objection from the plaintiffs. For management of the said property one Ajit Kumar Nandi was nominated and constituted as the attorney of the plaintiffs who proposed to the defendants by a notice dated 12.02.2009 that if the defendants are interested to purchase the said land at the market rate [the total land was valued at 14(fourteen) lakhs] they may accept that offer and purchase the land else they shall vacate the land. The defendants were given 7(seven) days for their reply. As it appears that no reply was given to the said communication and the defendants did not vacate the said suit property. Again on 27.02.2009, the plaintiffs served a notice on the defendants through Mr. Sakti Prakash Datta Purkayasta, advocate, who received the instruction from the said attorney, for vacating the suit property within 15(fifteen) days from the day of receipt of that notice. In para5 of the said notice (Exbt.-6 series) the following has been asserted for the plaintiff:

“That, before now, as a matter of humanity, my clients' attorney offered by a letter to notice recipient no.1 to purchase their involved property if he at all desired to do so, and their letter was received by him on 17.02.2009 under regd. post a.d; but he did not respond thereto. In fact, my clients require thin involved property to their own purpose and they need to get back their property free of their occupation. They have sold out their contiguous land portions; and if need be, they will either occupy & enjoy their involved property by themselves or will purchase more suitable property else by selling off the same.”

4. However, this time there was a response from Dhrubajyoti Goswami, Advocate for the defendants where it has been cat