PRADIP PAUL Vs. ILA SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugnment in this first appeal is the judgment and decree dated 17.08.2017 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit 35 of 2014 wherein the suit of the appellant-plaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A. Sengupta, leaned counsel appearing for the appellant-plaintiff (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff) and Mr. SM Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) As the rival assertions are integrated in the pleading, a brief reference thereto is indispensible. The plaintiff instituted suit No. 35 of 2014 under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 against the respondents seeking declaration that the sale deed bearing No. 1- 3049, dated 04.04.2014 is invalid, nonest, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff and a suit for Specific Performance of Contract and also for perpetual injunction. He claimed that he had been possessing the suit land as a tenant under the original landlord, Paresh Chandra Saha, who had expired on 03.10.2008 leaving behind his wife and two sons who were impleaded as defendants No. 1,2 and 3 in the original suit. During continuation of the present appeal, the defendant no.1 had expired. The defendants No. 1,2 and 3 being the legal heirs of late Paresh Chandra Saha proposed the plaintiff to purchase the suit land as they were in urgent need of money. Having agreed to that proposal, the plaintiff entered into a written agreement for sale dated 29.08.2013. It was agreed upon between the plaintiff and the defendants No. 1,2 and 3 that the defendants no. 1,2 and 3 would transfer the suit property to the plaintiff at a consideration of Rs. 6,50,000/- (rupees six lakh fifty thousand) only. The plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- (rupees one lakh forty thousand) only as advance out of the total consideration money and it was agreed upon between the plaintiff/transferee and the defendants No. 1,2 and 3 being the vendor that the plaintiff would pay the balance consideration money within next 6(six) months and on receipt, the vendor would execute the registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff-transferee. By a written letter dated 12.11.2013, the plaintiff offered the balance consideration money of Rs. 5,10,000/- to the defendants nos. 1, 2 and 3 and requested them to execute the sale deed for the suit property transferring the same absolutely to the plaintiff. The defendants no. 1,2 and 3 refused to transfer the suit property by executing the sale deed on the pretext that it was entered into by some misrepresentation of facts. On 11.04.2014, the plaintiff received an information that the defendants no. 1,2 and 3 were trying to sell the suit property to another person suppressing the subsistence of the agreement for sale between him and the said defendants. However, the defendants no. 1,2 and 3 had fraudulently and illegally had sold the suit property to one Smt. Dipti Saha, defendant-respondent no.4 herein.