SHRI RAIHARAN DATTA, S/O. LATE RAMESH CHANDRA DUTTA Vs. SHRI PARIMAL CHANDRA BAIDYA, SON OF LATE JATINDRA KUMAR BAIDYA OF UDAIPUR TOWN (NEAR INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS, UDAIPUR) P.S. RADHAKISHOREPUR, UDAIPUR. DISTRICT SOUTH TRIPURA.
LAWS(TRIP)-2017-1-11
HIGH COURT TRIPURA
Decided on January 10,2017

Shri Raiharan Datta, S/O. Late Ramesh Chandra Dutta Appellant
VERSUS
Shri Parimal Chandra Baidya, Son Of Late Jatindra Kumar Baidya Of Udaipur Town (Near Inspector Of Schools, Udaipur) P.S. Radhakishorepur, Udaipur. District South Tripura. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.C. Das, J. - (1.) Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. A.K. Bhowmik assisted by learned counsel, Mr. R. Dutta for the appellant-petitioners, learned senior counsel, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty assisted by learned counsel, Ms. B. Chakraborty for respondent No.1 and learned counsel, Mr. K.K. Pal for the respondent Nos.2 & 3.
(2.) The petitioners as appellants preferred RFA No. 1 of 2011 against the respondent-OPs challenging judgment and decree dated 26.04.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) South Tripura , Udaipur in Case No. T.S. No.19 of 2009. That appeal preferred by appellant petitioners was partly allowed by this Court by judgment dated 24.07.2014, followed by appellate decree dated 29.08.2014. The appeal was disposed of with the following observations and decisions of this Court:- 27. Out of the suit land, the defendant No.1 already sold .117 acres of land to defendant Nos. 2 and 3 by dint of Exhibit-5 and 6 and by dint of Exhibit-7 another .022 acres of land has been given by the defendant No.1 to defendant Nos.2 and 3 as path way. So in total the defendant No.1 already disposed of .139 acres of land in favour of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 out of total .240 acres of suit land. The defendant No.1 is, therefore, bound to execute sale deed for the rest area of . 101 acres of suit land in favour of the plaintiffs retaining Rs.8,83,750/- out of the advanced amount of Rs.18,65,000/- and the rest amount of Rs.9,81,250/- the defendant No.1 is bound to return to the plaintiffs with interest thereon. 28. The suit is accordingly partly decreed. The defendant No.1 is directed to execute the registered deed of sale in favour of the plaintiffs for .101 acres of the remaining suit land within 45 days from the date of appellate decree failing which the plaintiffs will be entitled to get the sale deed executed through Court as per law. The Defendant No.1 is further directed to return the remaining amount of Rs.9,81,250/- with 10% interest thereon from 13.11.2008 to the plaintiffs within 45 days from the date of appellate decree failing which the plaintiffs will be entitled to recover the amount from the defendant No.1 in due process of law. 29. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed with costs through out.
(3.) After the aforesaid appellate judgment and decree was passed, the appellant-petitioners presented one petition under Order 6, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking amendment in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal, which was registered as IA No. 1561/2016 and sought for correction of the father's name of appellant No. 1 and the name of appellant No.6. It was stated in that petition that the father's name of appellant No.1 was actually 'Ramesh Chandra Dutta' but it was inadvertently typed as 'Himesh Chandra Dutta' and that the name of plaintiff-appellant No.6 was 'Manash Kanti Roy' but it was inadvertently written as 'Naresh Kanti Roy'.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.