STATE OF TRIPURA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & COLLECTOR, WEST TRIPURA; RAJASREE SINHA; SANDHYA KARMAKAR; PRESIDENT, NABODAY SANGHA; NABODAY SANGHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this revisional application filed under Section 115 of the CPC, the order dated 17.12.2014 delivered in Misc.(Ex) No.6 of 2014 has been called in question. The said Misc.(Ex) No.6 of 2014 has arisen from Title Execution Case No.10 of 2013. To be precise, the objection under Section 47 of the CPC filed by the petitioners herein (the JDs No.5 and 6) has been registered as Misc. (Ex) No.6 of 2014. By the impugned order dated 17.12.2014, the said objection has been rejected.

(2.) The short fact that may be essential to appreciate the challenge as laid by this petition is that one Anukul Chandra Saha entered into an agreement for sale of the decreetal land on 04.08.2009 with the decree-holder, the respondent No.1. The consideration was settled at Rs.4,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.3,50.000/- was received by Anukul Chandra Saha as the earnest money at the time of executing the said agreement to sale. It was agreed that on payment of the remainder i.e. Rs.50,000/-, Anukul Chandra Saha would execute the sale deed. Suddenly, Anukul Chandra Saha died on 15.09.2009 before the expiry of the said 3(three) months. Since Anukul Chandra Saha had no descendants or legal heirs, one local club had hung a sign board on the suit land. According to the decreeholder, the said step was taken to deprive her. As a result, the respondent No.1 filed the suit, being Title Suit No.91 of 2009 against the petitioners and the respondents No.2, 3 and 4.

(3.) The petitioners herein by filing the written statement have contended that the State was not a party in the agreement and as such the State had no objection in executing any sale deed. Moreover, Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the transaction must be inter vivos. Section 5 of The Transfer of Property Act does not include the State within the meaning of 'living person'. However, living person includes a company or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, but nothing by sweep a 'living person' shall include the State and hence the State does not have the authority to transfer any property to any individual in terms of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and thus the State is not a 'person' within the meaning of Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. However, Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has fairly admitted that the suit has been decreed pursuant to the judgment dated 13.02.2013 in the following terms: