HEM CHANDRA CHOUDHURY Vs. AJADHYA BALA CHOUDHURY AND ORS.
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Hem Chandra Choudhury
Ajadhya Bala Choudhury And Ors.
Referred Judgements :-
VENKATACHALAM PILLAI V. SETHURAM RAO
V ALAGARSAMI NAIDU VS. KATHIA GOUNDAN
C. GOVINDA -SWAMI PILLAI V. DORAISWAMI MUDALI
Click here to view full judgement.
S.K. Dutta, C.J. -
(1.)THIS is a second appeal. The Plaintiff's case is as follows: The Plaintiff took lease for 8 years of 4 katha of land of dag No. 399 of K.P. Patta No. 799 at Bharalumukh, GauhatI from Defendant No. 1 for the purpose of constructing dwelling houses. The lease was dated 9 -6 -39 and was duly registered. In pursuance of the terms of the lease the Plaintiff spent about Rs. 500/ - in filling up the land and he constructed two houses of permanent nature and a pucca latrine at a cost of Rs, 2500/ -. Thereafter on 24 -4 -46 Defendant No. 1 executed and registered another lease in continuance of the previous lease. This second lease was for 4 kathas 7 lessees of land of the aforesaid dag and it was for 10 years with effect from 1st Bahag 1353 B.S.
One of the terms of these leases was that if at any time the lessor wanted to sell the demised land she would sell the same to the lessee on payment of a reasonable price thereof. In pursuance of the said terms Defendant No. 1 sold 1 katha 8 lessas of the demised land to the Plaintiff at Rs. 3500/ - per katha by a registered sale deed dated 16 -8 -54. Defendant No. 1 further assured the Plaintiff that if and when found necessary, she would sell the demised land to the plain -' tiff at a reasonable price. Then on receiving an ejectment notice dated 24 -11 -56 the Plaintiff learnt that the Defendant No. 1 purported to sell 1 katha of the demised land to Defendant No. 2 by a sale deed dated 1 -2 -51 at Rs. 4000/ -.
The Plaintiff was not aware of this sale, nor the Defendant No. 1 ever informed the Plaintiff of her intention to sell the land in question. The Defendant No. 1 by selling the said land to Defendant No. 2 broke the terms of the contract entered into with the Plaintiff. The sale of the land by 'Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No. 2 was collusive and without consideration and fraudulent. The Plaintiff therefore has prayed for specific performance of the contract for sale and in the alternative a decree for Rs. 3000/ - as compensation for breach of contract.
(2.)THE trial Court dismissed the suit on contest with cost. The first appellate Court upheld the dismissal of the suit, but relieved the Plaintiff of the cost. Hence this appeal by the Plaintiff.
The first Appellate Court held that the Plaintiff had no knowledge of the sale of the suit land by Defendant No. 1 to Defendant No. 2. It further held that Defendant No. 2 was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. But the first Appellate Court dismissed the suit on the ground that no contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant arose out of the stipulation in the lease that if the lessor wanted to sell the land, she would sell the same to the lessee on payment of a reasonable price thereof.
(3.)THE said stipulation which is contained in paragraph 6 of the lease (Ex. 4) is in Assamese and it runs as follows:
(Stipulation in para 6 of the lease was here quoted in Assamese.)
(Be it stated that if I, the first party, am ever required to sell the land described in the schedule and if you, the second party, agree to purchase the same at a reasonable price, I shall sell it to you.)
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.