- (1.) HISTORY : Dawn family was the owner of a vast plot of land mainly used for business purpose. The land had temporary structure spread over 168 cuttahs approximately. It was mainly used for weekly cloth market commonly known as Monglahat as the market would function on every Tuesday. By two registered Deed of Lease executed in 1939 one Kanailal Mimani and Surajmal Mimani got possession of the entire land for 50 years. The lease expired by efflux of time in 1989. There had been change of ownership in between the members of the Dawn family. Mimanis would claim, they started negotiation with the owners in 1987 for outright sale of the property in their favour. However, such negotiation was verbal. They claimed, a sum of Rs.5 lacs was paid to Dawns in a joint meeting held at the office of their Advocate. On May 3, 1987 it was subsequently agreed, the Dawns would sell and Mimanis would purchase the land at the rate of Rs.1 lac per cuttah. Since a sum of Rs.5 lacs was paid as earnest money Mimanis were obliged to pay the balance amount of Rs.163 lacs on sale being concluded in their favour.
(2.) Before the negotiation could materialize as contended by Mimanis or the lease would expire by efflux of time in 1989, the State of West Bengal requisitioned the said land under West Bengal Acquisition and Requisition Act, 1948. During pendency of the said litigation, the lease expired by efflux of time. The litigation reached the Apex Court level when the State of West Bengal lost. Before the Supreme Court the question arose, whom to hand over possession. Was it Mimanis from whom the possession was taken or the Dawns being the owners as the lease had expired by efflux of time? The Apex Court held in favour of Dawns.
(3.) Litigation started again when Mimanis filed a suit for specific performance before the Subordinate Court at Howrah inter alia asking for specific performance on the strength of the purported oral agreement. The matter ultimately came up before the Division Bench when the Division Bench observed, Mimanis did not have any right, however, to test their bona fide, the Division Bench asked them to deposit the entire consideration. The Apex Court did not interfere with such direction of the Division Bench. Mimanis thus deposited Rs.163 lacs in Court. Dawns would claim, the litigation between Mimani and Dawns would draw a close when parties settled their dispute inter se. The Terms of Settlement was duly executed by and between the parties. However, there had been a dispute inter se amongst the Mimani group that prevented the ultimate settlement. Be that as it may, the suit for specific performance is still awaiting final decision before the Civil Court at Howrah. Dawns were said to have executed two agreements for sale; one with Vandana Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. claiming to be the holder of the development agreement dated June 6, 1996 and the other by M/s. Basundhara Towers Pvt. Ltd. dated February 4, 1998. Hence, there were three rival claims. Mimani's oral agreement of 1987, the Vandana's Development agreement dated June 6, 1996 and Basundhara's agreement dated February 4, 1998. Altogether four title suits were filed. (i) Title Suit No. 1991 of 1997 in Howrah Court by Mimanis. (ii) Title Suit No. 40 of 2001 re-numbered as Title Suit No. 105 of 2001 in Howrah Court by Mimani. (iii) Civil Suit No. 406 of 1998 filed in this Court by Vandana. (iv) Title Suit No. 90 of 2004 pending in Howrah Court by Basundhara.;