PANCHANAN DHARA Vs. MONMATHA NATH MAITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 29th January, 1998 passed by the Calcutta High Court in Second Appeal No. 887 of 1991 affirming the judgment and order dated 29th June, 1990 passed by the learned Asstt. District Judge, Ghatal, District Midnapore, West Bengal in Title Appeal No. 74 of 1989 whereby and whereunder an appeal against the judgment dated 31st August, 1989 passed by the learned Munsif, Ghatal, District Midnapore, West Bengal in Title Suit No. 133 of 1985 was dismissed.

(2.) The basic fact of the matter is not much in dispute. Respondent No. 2 herein (the company) is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The said company held and possessed the suit property situated in the District of Midnapur in the State of West Bengal. It intended to sell the said property. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 having came to know of the said intention on the part of the company entered into an agreement for sale thereof, wherefor a sum of Rs. 6000/- was paid to the Company by way of advance. The balance amount was to be paid within a period of fourteen months. As the title of the Respondent No. 2 in respect of the said property was not clear, the Company instituted a suit against some persons who were claiming title thereover on or about 22-05-1971. The said suit was marked as Title Suit No. 110 of 1971. In the said suit a compromise petition was filed on 3-4-1979 which having been accepted by the concerned court, a consent decree was passed on the basis thereof on 3-5-1979. Respondent No. 1 thereafter issued several letters being dated 12-11-79, 11-01-80, 05-01-81 and 08-10-84 asking the Company to execute and register a sale deed in his favour. The Company in response thereto had all along been assuring the Respondent No. 1 that it would do so. By a letter dated 16-3-1985, one of the Directors of Respondent No. 2 assured Respondent No. 1 that no apprehension should be entertained by Respondent No. 1 that the contract between him and the company would not be honoured. However, on 21-8-1985, the company refused to execute and register a deed of sale in favour of Respondent No. 1 on the plea that the same became barred by limitation.

(3.) A suit for specific performance of the said agreement for sale dated 18-04-1971 was filed in the Court of Munsif, Ghatal, District Midnapore, West Bengal which was marked as Title Suit No. 133 of 1985. It is not in dispute that not only the Appellant herein had filed a caveat in the said suit, it purchased the said property on 13-11-1985, i.e., during pendency thereof. Even in the deed of sale executed in favour of the Appellant by the Company the factum of the said suit being pending in the court had specifically been mentioned.