Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This appeal is at the instance of the defendant in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of immovable property and is directed against Judgment and Decree dated 7th July, 1994 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Second Court. Contai in O.S. No.51 of 1994.
(2.) The respondent herein, filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of land with structure and the case made out by the plaintiff may be epitomised thus:- (a) The defendant is the owner of the suit property including the land and house and the property is recorded in the name of defendant in the records of right. (b) The defendant being in the need of money for building his pucca house declared his intention to sell the property at Rs. 2,00,000/- and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the property at that price. But at that time, as the entire amount was not readily available to the plaintiff, there was an agreement between the parties by which the defendant received a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- as advance from the plaintiff by executing an agreement dated 7th February, 1994. (c) By virtue of such written agreement dated 7th February, 1994 it was agreed that balance amount of Rs. 85,000/- should be paid by plaintiff to defendant within one month i.e. 7th March, 1994 and after such payment, the defendant would be bound to register the said property in favour of the plaintiff. (d) The plaintiff was ready with balance consideration of Rs. 85,000/- before the expiry of the stipulated period but at that time Registration Office was going on strike and as such, the defendant received a further sum of Rs. 35,000/- only from the plaintiff on 6th March, 1994 and gave a receipt by affixing a revenue stamp with a written undertaking that when the registration would be normal, the parties would fix a date of registration. (e) Subsequently, the normal work of the Registration Office resumed and the plaintiff requested the defendant for registration on acceptance of the balance consideration of Rs. 50,000/- but the defendant took time and ultimately, on 15th March, 1994, through a learned Advocate served a notice to the plaintiff asserting that the agreement was a false one. Hence the suit.
(3.) Subsequently, by way of amendment the plaintiff introduced a new case that one Sri Srimanta Das was a tenant in the suit property for a long time and at the time of execution of agreement the plaintiff told the defendant that the tenant would be evicted and on 6th March, 1994 it was further agreed that after receiving Rs. 35,000/- on that day, the balance Rs. 50,000/- should be paid at the time of execution by making that payment to the tenant. It was further alleged that the defendant did not evict the tenant and the plaintiff was agreeable to purchase the property but the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- should be adjusted if the tenant was not evicted.;