An unexecuted land sale agreement lacking proper stamping is inadmissible, preventing enforcement of specific performance rights, while co-owners retain the right for mutual eviction without notice.

ORDER

Date : 10-11-2022

Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. A. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. As common issues of facts of law arise in both the appeals, both the appeals have been taken together for a common disposal. Accordingly, with the consent of both sides, these appeals have been taken up for hearing together.

3. The appellant is the plaintiff in TS No. 87/2007 and the respondents were the defendants in the said suit. The suit as well as the counter-claim was dismissed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, while the appellant- plaintiff had filed T.A. No. 3/2008 against dismissal of suit, the respondents- defendants herein had filed T.A. No. 3/2008 against the dismissal of the counter-claim. While TA No. 3/2008 was dismissed, TA No. 4/2008 was decreed. Thus, RSA No. 179/2009 is directed against the decree of dismissal of TA No. 3/2008. Moreover, TA No. 180/2009 is directed against decree allowing TA No. 4/2008.

4. The suit was initially filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the substituted appellants, namely, Ramasis Gupta. The case projected in plaint is that one Suren Kakati (since deceased) along with his four brothers as a owner of plot land measuring 1B-1K-13L covered by Dag No. 309 and land measuring 0B-1K-5L covered by Dag No. 313 of PP No. 49 Block No. 5 of Naharkatia Town, Mouza- Jeypur in the district of Dibrugarh. The predecessor- in- interest of the appellants had claimed that in the year 1971 he had taken a land measuring 17.91 lechas on lease from Suren Kakati (since deceased) at a monthly rent of Rs.20/- per month, which was subsequently enhanced from time to time. It is projected that in the first part of 1983, Suren Kakati (since deceased) had given an offer to the predecessor-in-interest of the substituted appellants to purchase the leased land at a sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-. It is claimed that on 20.04.1983 an advance of Rs.20,000/- was paid and acknowledgement receipt was given by the said Suren Kakati in presence of witnesses. Thereafter, in the last part of 1983, the predecessor-in-interest of the substituted appellants had constructed a shop facing the road side, i.e. on the north-eastern side of the residential premises. Accordingly, a monthly rent of Rs.170/- per month was paid for both the residence and shop. In or about the year 1984-85, Suren Kakati had expired and the respondent nos. 1 and 3, who are the brothers of the said late Suren Kakati was asked to receive a balance consideration of Rs.30,000/- and to execute the sale deed. It is further projected that Suren Kakati had four other brothers and out of which Suren Kakati, Badan Chandra Kakati and Umakanta Kakati had expired unmarried. Accordingly, the respondent nos. 1 and 3 became the owner of the entire land including land covered by PP No. 49.

5. It was further pleaded that the respondent nos.1 and 3 allegedly refused to execute the sale deed for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- and instead demanded sale consideration of Rs.1.00 lakh. Thereafter, disputes arose between the parties and criminal cases wer