ANJALI ROY AND 2 ORS Vs. MANIKA DAS AND 3 ORS
LAWS(GAU)-2018-12-51
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on December 11,2018

Anjali Roy And 2 Ors Appellant
VERSUS
Manika Das And 3 Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Prasanta Kumar Deka, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. GP Bhowmik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, assisted by Ms. M Kalita, Advocate. Also heard Mr. RC Das, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents.
(2.) The judgment and decree dated 24.06.2009 passed in Title Suit No. 23/2007 by the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon is put under challenge in these appeals under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC'). The appellants, as plaintiffs, preferred the Title Suit No. 23/2007 which was dismissed and the counter-claim filed by the defendant/ respondent nos. 3 & 4 in that title suit was decreed. The plaintiffs/ appellants preferred first appeal being RFA No. 42/2009 against the decree passed in the counter-claim filed by the defendant/ respondent nos. 3 & 4 and later on, preferred another first appeal being RFA 132/2017 against the dismissal of the suit. Both the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
(3.) The plaintiffs/ appellants preferred the suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of an oral agreement for sale of the suit property which is a plot of land measuring 2K 2L covered by Dag No. 319 of Patta No. 575 under Bongaigaon Revenue Circle in the district of Bongaigaon with a house standing thereon under Holding No. 176 of Ward No. 10 under the Bongaigaon Municipality. One Deba Narayan Roy (since deceased) was the husband of the plaintiff/ appellant no. 1 and father of the plaintiff/ appellant nos. 2 & 3. During the lifetime of the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/ appellants, Deba Narayan Roy entered into a lease agreement with respect to a part of the house standing on the suit land on 17.04.2002 on a monthly rent of Rs. 1800/- which was executed by him and the defendant/ respondent no. 1. Rent was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 2000/- per month. It is pleaded that at the time of entering into the lease agreement, the defendant/ respondent nos. 1 & 2, the wife and the husband respectively, assured that they were planning to settle permanently in Kolkata and would sell the suit property to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/ appellants. One Sri Jagadish Chandra Das was authorised by the said defendant/ respondent nos. 1 & 2 to collect the monthly rent which the plaintiffs/ appellants paid regularly. The defendant/ respondent nos. 1 & 2 during their occasional visits to Bongaigaon assured to sell the suit property as aforesaid and finally the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs/ appellants accepted the offer of sale on 10.08.2005. The said acceptance was in presence of witnesses, namely, Jagadish Das, Monoranjan Mitra, Nihar Ranjan Ray etc. The consideration was fixed at a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- and both the parties agreed to obtain the sale permission and the defendant/ respondent nos. 1 & 2 agreed to execute the sale deed within a short span of time.;


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