Decided on October 24,2017

Shri Asutosh Dey Appellant
Shri Meghnad Saha Respondents


T.Vaiphei - (1.) This second appeal is directed against the appellate decree dated 176-2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No. 46 of 2012 affirming the original decree dated 27-8-2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No. 1, Agartala in Title Suit No. 87 of 2008 decreeing the suit.
(2.) While admitting the appeal, this Court formulated the following questions as substantial questions of law for hearing: "1. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court suffers from perversity? 2. Whether the provisions embodied in Section 53-A of the T.P. Act has been wrongly construed and applied by the Courts below?"
(3.) Before proceeding further, the facts giving rise to this appeal may be briefly noticed. The appellant is the defendant No. 2 in the suit, while the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 2 are the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 respectively. For simplification, I will refer to the appellant as the defendant No. 2 and the respondent No. 1 and 2 as the plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 respectively. According to the plaintiff (Meghnad Saha), he is the elder brother of the defendant No. 1, who offered to sell to him one of the rooms of his building situate at Sakuntala Road Extension, Agartala, West Tripura as he was badly in need of money. On getting this offer, the plaintiff consulted his other brothers. On 243-2008, the defendant No. 1 was called to the hut of one Jitendra Chandra Saha, who is one of the brothers, in the presence of his two other brothers and in that meeting, it was agreed that the plaintiff would purchase the suit room from the defendant No. 1 for a price of Rs. 5,00,000/- and that 10% of the consideration money was to be paid by the plaintiff as earnest money (advance) for the sale. On receiving the earnest money of Rs. 50,000/- from the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 informed the plaintiff that the balance amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- might be paid to him within a period of one year as the suit room was then under the occupation of a tenant, namely, ANC Trader, and he would execute a registered sale deed in his favour after the said tenant vacated the suit room.;

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