- (1.) This appeal, arose out of the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2012 and 7.06.2012 respectively passed in CS No. 246 of 2009, has a long chequered history. The case of the respondents No. 1 to 7 (the plaintiffs No. 1 to 7 of CS No. 246 of 2009 and hereinafter referred to as the principal respondents) is that one Sambhu Kumar Chowdhury, since deceased, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents No. 8 to 10 (father of the defendants No. 1 to 2 and the husband defendant No. 3 and hereinafter referred to as the respondents No. 8 to 10) received a sum of Rs. 5, 11,000/- (five lakh eleven thousand only) from the principal respondents No. 1 to 7 for selling out plots of land measuring 28 Cottahas and 2 Chittaks and subsequently paid back Rs. 2,50,000/- (two lakh fifty thousand only) on two different dates. In August 2006, he offered to sell out land measuring 27cottahs and 5 Chittaks from the said land for a consideration of Rs. 27,31,250/- (twenty seven lakh thirty one thousand two hundred fifty only) upon representation that the properties were free from all encumbrances. Rest of the amount from Rs. 5, 11,000/- (five lakh eleven thousand only) was treated as earnest money.
(2.) As per agreed terms, 4 (four) deeds of conveyance were duly executed and registered at Howrah on the 6th September, 2006 and on the next day, i.e. , on the 7th September 2006 when the agents of the principal respondents went to take possession of those plots, it was detected that those plots were already acquired by the Howrah Improvement Trust, on payment of compensation to the respondents/vendors (i.e., the predecessor of the respondents no. 8 to 10). Thereafter, the representative of the respondents No. 1 to 7 ascertained the factum of such acquisition by the Howrah Improvement Trust but the respondents No. 8 to 10 executed such sale deeds in favour of the principal respondents, received consideration from them though they (the respondents No. 8 to 10) did not have any right to transfer the land by sale. The principal respondents No. 1 to 7 could recover a sum of Rs. 23,81,250/- (twenty three lakh eighty one thousand two hundred fifty only) from their vendors by an order of the High Court, dated the 5th March, 2009 but they were again entitled to recover Rs. 3,50,000/- (three lakh fifty thousand only), as incidental charges, costs and accrued interest at the rate of 18 (eighteen) per cent per annum in respect of Rs. 23,81,250/- (twenty three lakh eighty one thousand two hundred fifty only) with effect from the 6th September, 2006.
(3.) The principal respondents, to save themselves from serious prejudice and irreparable loss, sent Advocate's notice to the respondents No. 8 to 10, and their bankers asking them not to release the amount in their (vendors') favour and subsequently they had to file a Suit being T.S. No. 176 of 2006 before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Howrah, seeking relief for realization of the amount, they had to pay, being misguided by the respondents No. 8 to 10, but ultimately an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. was filed in that Suit (T.S. No. 176 of 2006), got a compromise decree where the respondents No. 8 to 10 agreed to return the amount to the respondents No. 1 to 7 by Bankers' cheques, kept in different banks including the appellant as well as the respondents No. 11, 12 and 13.;