SWAPAN CHANDRA DEY Vs. ASHOK PETROLEUM AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This present appeal has been filed for setting aside and modifying the original Judgment and Decree date 3/1/2023 and 17/1/2023 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No.2, Agartala, West Tripura in connection with Title Suit No.92 of 2013.

(2.) The brief of this case is that the plaintiffrespondent No.1 is a registered partnership firm while the plaintiff-respondents Nos.2 to 6 are its partners. The plaintiff- respondent firm being an agent of the Indian Oil Corporation deals in the distribution of petrol/diesel at a retail dispensing unit in Agartala located at Durgabari Road just beside the main gate of the Agartala Palace which is the suit land described more particularly in the schedule appended to the plaint. The plaintiffs' partnership firm by virtue of a lease agreement executed in the year 1976 with the original owner of the suit land has been in continuous and undisturbed possession of the suit land thereby running its business of petrol dispensing outlet thereon since 1976. Originally the suit land belonged to the Roy Choudhury Family. It is asseverated that to convert the pumping station into an ideal Motor Oil Dispensing Unit at Agartala, Indian Oil Corporation had in the year 2003 entered into a Sale Agreement with the original owners of the suit land. However, during the subsistence of the said agreement with the Indian Oil Corporation, the original owners stealthily sold the suit land to one Swapan Chandra Dey i.e., the defendant-appellant herein who in turn mortgaged the suit land to the UCO Bank i.e. defendant-respondent No.9 herein for obtaining loan. Then the Indian Oil Corporation instituted a suit vide T.S.59/2003 for Specific Performance of the Sale Agreement inked with the original owners of the suit land. In the meanwhile the Bank i.e. defendant-respondent No.9 herein not being able to realize/recover the huge loan amount from Swapan Chandra Dey i.e. defendant-appellant herein applied the SARFAESI Act and took over the symbolic possession of the suit land and then transferred the said mortgaged properly i.e., suit land to a Securitization Company named ASREK (India) Ltd. i.e. defendant-respondent no.7 herein. It is asserted that the plaintiffs who are only a lessee in possession of the suit land apprehending illegal dispossession filed a suit for permanent injunction which is registered as TS 72/2003 and pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div), Agartala. The plaintiffs obtained an order of temporary injunction dtd. 21/1/2023 from the court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.-2). It is further asserted by the plaintiffs that the defendant-respondent No.7 had in the newspaper dtd. 24/2/2013 brought an advertisement inviting offers for sale of the suit land fixing the lowest offer at Rs.47,00,000.00 (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs) only. This advertisement having come to the notice of the plaintiffs' firm, it's agent contacted defendant-respondent No.7. In a concluded negotiation, it was a verbal commitment made by the defendant-respondent no.8 on behalf of the company that the price will be Rs.48,00,000.00 and the transaction will be made only after the court cases are settled or withdrawn. Thereafter, the plaintiffs were in peace and confident that the suit land would be their own land and they could continue their business. But it transpired from a private source that the said defendant has surreptitiously contracted with the defendant-respondent No.10 for the sale of the suit land at the consideration of Rs.50.00 lakhs concealing the fact of negotiation and verbal agreement with the plaintiffs' firm. Soon thereafter the plaintiffs sent a notice to defendants-ASREK(India) limited by courier on 13/4/2013 and by the said notice the information was sought to be confirmed with the plaintiffs' firm also confirming its readiness to pay the same amount which has been settled with the defendant-respondent No.10. A letter was also sent to the Sub-Registrar, Agartala intimating him about the apprehended illegal sale and consequences thereof. No response came forth from the defendants, and after about a month it came to light that the defendant-respondent No.10 had already deposited the price for concluding the purchase. It is also asseverated that plaintiffs got the information though unconfirmed that defendant-respondent No.7 herein had issued a sale certificate to the defendant-respondent no.10 herein without any information to the plaintiffs whose interest in paramount to the suit land.

(3.) Hence the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit bearing No.T.S.92 of 2013 before the Court of Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Court No.2 seeking the following reliefs:-