DULAL CHANDRA DEB Vs. GITA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a First Appeal preferred by the original plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 31/5/2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court no. 1, West Tripura, Agartala, in connection with case no. Title Suit 09 of 2014.

(2.) When the matter is taken up for hearing both Mr. RG Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel for the respondents have appeared. Mr. Datta, learned counsel has pressed the court to dispose of the appeal since learned counsel for the appellant had already taken so many adjournments on the previous occasions. Mr. RG Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that he is not in a position to conduct the case for the reason that the appellant has taken away the file from him. I do not find in the record that Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has ever informed the said fact to the Registry of this court. I have verified the order sheets of the case record. It is revealed that from the very beginning Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel was negligent in conducting the case. From the order dtd. 1/11/2019 it is evident that Mr. Chakraborty, appeared before the Lowazima Court to take steps within a period of 7 days, otherwise, the matter would be placed before the court under the heading 'non-prosecution'. Only thereafter steps were taken. From the order dtd. 9/12/2020 it comes to light that Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing before the court on 9/12/2020 had prayed for time and the matter was listed on 9/3/2021. Again, on 9/3/2021 when the matter came up before this court, the case was adjourned at the request of Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel. From the order dtd. 9/7/2021, it appears that when the matter was taken up for hearing none of the learned counsel for the appellant including Mr. Chakraborty did not appear before the court. The matter was also listed on 8/10/2021 when it was again adjourned, and thereafter, the case has been listed today for hearing. Mr. Raju Datta, learned counsel for the respondents has pressed for hearing the appeal, but, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel had taken the plea that the file had been taken away. This court has noticed that the appellant is represented by 3 (three) counsels. There are other two counsels, but, none of them has appeared. It is a matter of 2018. As such, this court after accepting the submission of Mr. Datta, learned counsel for the respondents has asked Mr. Datta, learned counsel to make his submissiions regarding facts of the case. Till such submissions advanced by Mr. Datta, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. RG Chakraborty, learned counsel was standing in the court and prayed for time. However, after hearing Mr. Datta, learned counsel, I deem it imperative to go into the root of the case and to peruse the entire record available in the paper book. I have perused the pleadings and evidences, as adduced by the parties to the suit and have formed an opinion that the case may be decided on the basis of materials available in the record before the court. As such, I have proceeded to decide the matter.

(3.) Briefly stated, the plaintiff had instituted a suit for declaration and for specific performance of contract. The suit land originally belonged to one Sri Sunil Pal i.e. the defendant No.6 and by virtue of Registered Sale Deed No.15273 dtd. 13/6/2000, the predecessor of the defendant Nos.1 to 5 namely Radha Govinda Das since deceased purchased the suit land from the defendant No.6 on valuable consideration alongwith delivery of possession. Radha Govinda Das since deceased during his lifetime entered into an agreement for sale with the plaintiff on 24/8/2008 at Rs.5,45,000.00 and the plaintiff paid Rs.10,001.00 only in cash to the said Radha Govinda Das, since deceased. There was a condition in the said Agreement for Sale that within 4 (four) months the plaintiff would pay the balance amount of consideration and after receiving the same Radha Govinda Das since deceased would execute and register the appropriate sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. It was further agreed that on receiving new khatian in favour of late Radha Govinda Das, the plaintiff would make payment of the balance amount of consideration, but, Radha Govinda Das, since deceased failed to produce any khatian in his name, as such, the matter was delayed and no registered sale deed could be executed by said Radha Govinda Das. In the year 2011 said Radha Govinda Das has died leaving behind the present defendant Nos. 1 to 5 as his legal heirs and the plaintiff also approached the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 several times to have the registered sale deed in his favour, but, no result. On 31/12/2012 there was a sitting amongst the plaintiff and the legal heirs of Late Radha Govinda Das wherein it was settled that within a period of one year the defendant Nos.1 to 5 would arrange for record of right in their names after collecting the death certificate and survival certificate from the appropriate authority, and after that they would receive the balance amount of consideration from the plaintiff and they would execute and register the appropriate Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff. Unfortunately, the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 did not take any step, as such, on 20/2/2013 the plaintiff requested the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 to make a registered Sale Deed on receiving the balance amount of consideration, but, they assured the plaintiff to wait for some time. The plaintiff again approached the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 on 7/3/2013 and offered the balance amount of consideration and requested them to execute and register the Sale Deed in his favour over the suit land, but, defendant Nos. 1 to 5 started to avoid the plaintiff. It is further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was/is always ready and willing to purchase the suit land, and he is offering the balance amount of consideration to the defendant Nos.1 to 5 for getting the registered Sale Deed. The plaintiff served a notice under sec. 80(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure read with sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act dtd. 8/4/2013 upon the defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 10 to 12 to which the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 replied vide dtd. 16/4/2013 that their predecessor purchased the suit land by registered Sale Deed No.15273 dtd. 13/6/2000 from Sri Sunil Pal i.e. the defendant No.6, but such purchased land did not include C.S. Plot Nos. 4142, 4151 and 4140 of Mouja - Pratapgarh. In fact, the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 are in possession over the suit land although Record of Right does not stand in the name of their predecessor namely Radha Govinda Das. The plaintiff has served another notice dtd. 8/5/2013 upon the defendants including Sri Sunil Pal, Sri Sudhir Basu and Sri Haradhan Pal.