Decided on May 07,2018

Izazur Rahman Appellant
Iftikar Rahman @ Sajid Respondents


Mir Alfaz Ali, J. - (1.) This second appeal filed by the plaintiff was admitted to be heard on the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether the delivery of possession of the property is a condition for the sale within the meaning of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, when such sale has been affected by a registered deed of sale (Exhibit-2)? (2) Whether the sale deed, Exhibit-2 being a registered document, the presumption can be drawn about the due execution of such sale deed as well as the contents of the same?
(2.) The plaintiff filed the Title Suit No.109/2005 for ejectment of the defendants. The case of the plaintiff was that he purchased 1 katha 3 lechas of land covered by PP No.231 (New) 108 (Old) and Dag no.522 (Part) situated at Gabharupathar, Dibrugarh with an old pucca house consisting of 7 rooms by registered sale deed No.2522/1999 from the defendant No.1 and took possession thereof. Later on, the defendant No.1 was inducted as tenant in the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs.1500/- with effect from 10.07.2002 and subsequently the tenancy agreement was renewed from time to time. When the plaintiff applied for mutation of the holding in respect of the suit premises, the defendant No.1 raised an objection before the Vice Chairman Municipal Board on 01.08.2005, stating, that the plaintiff did not pay full consideration in respect of the sale deed which was executed by her in the year 1999. The plaintiff further stated that taking advantage of being in occupation of the suit premises as tenant, the defendant raised false plea and also failed to pay the rent and thereby became defaulter. The defendant also sub-let a portion of the suit premises to the defendant No.2. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment of the defendant on the ground of defaulter and sub-letting.
(3.) Besides denial of the averment of the plaint, the pleaded case of the defendant No.1 was that she did not sell the suit premises to the plaintiff. The specific case of the defendant No.1 was that she was an old ailing lady of 74 years of age having no issue. The plaintiff used to visit her and help her in drawing pension etc. On the pretext of requirement for drawing her pension, the plaintiff took signatures of the defendant No.1 on some blank papers. The defendant stated that the plaintiff by obtaining signatures of the defendant No.1 on blank papers and taking advantage of her old age cheated the defendant No.1. The defendants also denied the relationship of landlord and tenant as well as the allegation of non-payment of rent.;

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