Back
2018 Supreme(Tri) 210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Sri Dilip Kr. Banik S/o Late Jogesh Banik @ Jogesh Chandra Banik – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Suniti Banik W/o Late Rajmohan Banik – Respondent
RSA Nos. 3, 4 of 2015
Decided On : 24-07-2018
For the Appellants : Mr. D. Chakraborty, Mr. H. Laskar.
For the Respondents: Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Mr. Soumen Saha.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for valid legal agreements and the need for the agreement to be in writing for part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
Headnote:
oral agreement - Property Dispute - Transfer of Property Act, Section 53A - Summary: The court discussed the existence of an oral agreement for the sale of land and its enforcement under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The court highlighted the requirement for the agreement to be in writing for part performance and emphasized the need for valid legal agreements. The judgment set aside previous decisions and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of right, title, and interest over a piece of land. The defendant claimed an oral agreement for the sale of part of the land and sought specific performance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the previous judgments did not consider the impact on a third party who had purchased part of the land. It set aside the previous decisions and remitted the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need to involve the third party in the proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was the existence and enforcement of an oral agreement for the sale of land, and the impact on a third party's rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement for valid legal agreements, the need for the agreement to be in writing for part performance under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, and the impact on third-party rights.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication, with instructions to involve the third party in the proceedings.
1. Heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Soumen Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. These appeals being RSA No. 3 of 2015 and RSA No. 4 of 2015 arise from the common judgment dated 29.10.2014 delivered in Title Appeal No. 7 of 2013 and Title Appeal (Cross) No. 8 of 2013. Title Appeal No. 7 of 2013 emerged from the judgment dated 05.10.2012 delivered in Title Suit No. 17 of 2010 by the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala and Title Appeal (Cross) No. 8 of 2013 emerged from the counter claim being T.S. (Counter Claim) No. 82 of 2011 as instituted in respect of Title Suit No. 10 of 2010. The trial court by the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2012 decreed the suit, whereas the said counter claim was dismissed by the judgment dated 05.10.2012. But by the common judgment dated 29.10.2012, the judgment dated 05.10.2012 as delivered in Title Suit No. 17 of 2010 was reversed and the suit was dismissed and the counter claim was decreed directing the plaintiff-appellant to perform in terms of the oral agreement as executed in the first week of March, 1989 for sale of land measuring 0.32 acres of land to the defendant No. 1 as the plaintiff had already received the entire consideration money. For purpose of better elucidation, the operative part of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:
“Defendant no. 1 shall pay the balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the plaintiff within three months from today which shall be received by the plaintiff with receipt in writing. Immediately, he shall execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant no. 1 relating to 0.32 acre of land as recorded in her name in Exbt.2 Failing this, defendants shall be entitled to get the decree executed in due process of law.”
3. Against the said common judgment, when these appeals were admitted, the following substantial question of law was formulated by this court by the order dated 03.08.2015:
“Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge in Title appeal No. 07 of 2013 suffers from perversity.”
4. The fundamental facts, relevant for these appeals may be noted at the outset.
The plaintiff-appellant instituted the suit being Title Suit No. 17 of 2010 for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land as described in the schedule of the plaint measuring 0.25 acres. There is no dispute that the plaintiff-appellant was the owner of the land measuring 0.49 acres. The plaintiff-appellant permitted the defendant No. 1 to live on a part of the land about 30 years back. According to him, such arrangement was completely temporary. When Raghunathpur Gaon Panchayet provided the fund and materials for construction of a room on the said land under Indira Abash Yojona [IAY], the defendant No. 1 raised objection on 04.12.2012 and because of that objection, the benefit was not given to the plaintiff-appellant.
The defendants contested the suit by filing the written statement and set up a counter claim being Title Suit (Counter Claim) No. 82 of 2011. In the said counter claim, the defendant No. 1 projected a case that in the last week of March, 1981, the plaintiff-appellant proposed to sell the part of the suit land, measuring 0.32 acres and after accepting that proposal, the defendant No. 1 paid a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as the entire consideration money and it was agreed that the plaintiff-appellant shall execute the sale deed. Thereafter, on 15.08.2009 for purpose of execution of the sale deed, the defendant No. 1 paid Rs. 2,000/- for expenditure of registration. The plaintiff-appellant demanded a further sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The defendant No. 1 agreed to pay that additional amount. On 22.09.2009, the plaintiff- appellant refused to execute the sale deed and hence, the counter claim has been formed. In para-6 of the plaint, the plaintiff-appellant h
