SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA,J. - (1.) S.A. Nos. 002 of 2018 and 003 of 2018, having arisen out of the same suit and being thematically connected, were heard consecutively and are being decided together.
(2.) The present second appeal, bearing S.A. No. 002 of 2018, has been filed by the first defendant, in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, against a judgment of affirmance. The reliefs claimed in the suit were as follows: "a) A decree declaring that the plaintiff is owner of the land bearing survey No. 127/2 and 127/3 together with the structures standing thereon situated at wandoor village, Ferrargunj Tehsil, South Andaman District. b) A decree declaring the Sale Deed executed between defendants No. 2 and 3 and the defendant No.1 Null and void and cancelled c) A Decree for permanent injunction against the Defendant No.1 and to disturb the possession of the Plaintiff in suit schedule property 'C' d) A decree retraining the Defendant No.1 no to transfer the suit schedule property 'C' to any third party. e) A decree declaring the damages to the tune of 13000/- per day @ Rs. 1000/- per hut, per day from the Defendant No.1 with effect from 1.11.2007 till opening the Resort. OR f) Alternatively, the Plaintiff prayed before this Learned Court to pass decree directing the Defenant No.1 to pay amount of Rs. 1,65,42,799/- together with 18% interest till its realization. g) Cost of the suit. h) Any other relief or relief's order/orders the Plaintiff is entitled to law and equity."
(3.) The plaint case, in a null shell, was that the plaintiff was a permanent residence of Singapore, where he worked in a travel industry. The plaintiff deputed the first defendant to purchase some landed property for development and construction of an eco-friendly resort. For such purpose, the plaintiff started sending money through bank, Western Union and other means to the defendant No. 1 to purchase commercial land in the name of the plaintiff and thereafter to undertake development and construction of an eco-friendly resort. Subsequently, the defendant purchased the land mentioned in Schedule-A to the plaint through two registered sale deeds, respectively dated July 03, 2000 and July 26, 2000. Subsequently, in the year 2004, the first defendant/appellant executed a gift deed in respect of Schedule-B property, which is a part of the Schedule-A property in respect of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1. However, the first defendant refused to transfer the other portion of Schedule-A property, comprised of Schedule-C property, in favour of the plaintiff.;