JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC from the judgment dated 29.09.2011 delivered in Title Appeal No.59 of 2006 by the Addl. District Judge, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala.

2. For hearing of the appeal the following substantial questions of law were framed by the order dated 03.04.2012:

(i) Whether the first appellate Court has misread the pleadings of the parties while arriving at the conclusion as to the voidability of the agreement for sale?

(ii) Whether the findings of fact as recorded by the first appellate Court as to the readiness and willingness of the appellant to purchase the suit property and as to the payment of earnest money and the existence of agreement for sale suffers from non-reading and mis-appreciation of the evidence as recorded by the learned trial Court?

3. The essential fact that would be relevant for appreciating the challenge may be introduced at the beginning. The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale being Title Suit No.11 of 1999 in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala.

4. As pleaded by the plaintiff, the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 are the joint owners of the Schedule-A land including the suit land as described in the Schedule-B of the plaint. In the month of September, 1993 the defendant No.4, the respondent No.4 herein informed the plaintiff, the appellant herein, that the defendants No.1, 2 and 3, now represented by the respondents No.1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, the respondent No.2 and respondents No. 3a, 3b and 3c proposed to sell the entire A-Schedule land and the defendant No.4 intended to purchase a plot of land therefrom. The defendant No.5 in the suit, namely Pulin Behari Majumder is the representative of the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3. The defendant No.5, the respondent No.5 in the original memorandum of appeal has been deleted at the risk of the appellant. Having received such information, the plaintiff met the defendant No.5 and expressed his intention to purchase a plot of land from the Schedule-A land. The plaintiff collected the address of the original defendant No.1, 2 and 3 from the defendant No.5 and met the defendant No.1 at his shop at Central Road, Agartala.

5. At that time the defendant No.1 categorically stated that he would sell the entire A-Schedule land to a single purchaser or to the different purchasers but simultaneously. As such the plaintiff was asked to wait till the purchasers for the entire A-Schedule land are found. Thereafter, the plaintiff did not maintain contact with the defendant No.5. However, in the month of August, 1994, the plaintiff met the defendant No.1 again, but there was no clear assurance. On 07.06.1996, the plaintiff met the defendant No.1 at his shop at Central Road, Agartala being accompanied by the defendant No.5 and his neighbour Shri Narayan Majumder. The defendant No.5 discussed the matter, regarding sale and purchase of the A-Schedule land with the defendant No.1 in presence of the plaintiff and said Narayan Majumder.

6. From the discussion, the plaintiff came to learn that the A-Schedule land was divided into 4(four) plots. Out of which plot No.2 from the south was sold to one Shri Tapan Kumar Paul and others in 1994 and the eastern part of the plot was allegedly sold to one Nalini Debnath and plots No. 1, 3 and the western part of the plot No.4 remained unsold. The defendant No.1 on his behalf and on behalf of his sons, the defendants No. 2 and 3, proposed to sell the plot No.3 from the south with an area of 430 sq.ft. corresponding to 1 kara 2 krantas 19½ according to the local measurement to the plaintiff at a consideration of Rs.75,000/-. What is necessary to note that the plaintiff accepted to the proposal. But he had no ready money for purchasing the suit land and the plaintiff proposed to enter into an agreement with the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 on payment of a sum, being the earnest money, on stipulating a period within which t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document