INDIRA CHUNDER Vs. LAXMI CHARAN LAW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Madhab Charan Law was seized and possessed of various properties. He died on September 27, 1970 leaving him surviving his widow and other children. The widow died within two months thereafter. In September, 1971 his heirs filed a suit for partition. The parties subsequently settled the suit by filing a Terms of Settlement on January 14, 1983 whereby one Ajit Chunder, husband of the appellant was appointed Receiver and Commissioner of partition. One of the properties belonging to the estate was situated at Madhyamgram that would be the subject matter of the present appeal. The facts would depict, the appellant wanted to purchase the Madhyamgram property at the rate of Rs.40,000.00 per bigha 'as is where is' basis. The other party Smt. Gouri Mondal and Smt. Geeta Roy gave her consent provided, the entire sum was paid in cash as indicated in their letter appearing at page-45 of the paper book. The letter dated June 10, 1985 at page-45 would show, Gita and Gouri gave their consent provided, Indira would pay Rs.23,000.00 due to the estate against her requisition of one house at Raja Naba Kissen Street as per the Terms of Settlement. They also imposed a condition that money was to be paid in cash immediately and the sale would be 'as is where is basis'. On the strength of the said consent, the Receiver, the husband of the appellant tried to get the property transferred in her wife's name 'free from all encumbrances' that also at a much belated stage. The facts would further depict, her husband signed the agreement for sale on October 5, 1985 and obtained appropriate leave to complete the sale. While obtaining such leave the Receiver surreptitiously incorporated the clause 'free from all encumbrances'. Despite request being made, the Receiver did not furnish copy of the agreement to the other parties. Ultimately, by an order dated September 5, 1989 the party Receiver was discharged and two advocates of this Court being Sri Baladev Mullick and Mr. Arunava Sarkar were appointed as Joint Receiver. Mr. Mullick was the advocate-on-record for the appellant. The sale was however, not concluded.

(2.) BY a letter dated September 24, 1994 the appellant wrote to the Joint Receivers expressing her willingness to complete purchase in respect of a portion of Dag No. 563 and by a letter dated September 24, 1994 sent Deed of Conveyance for approval. The other parties objected to the same. This gave rise to a discord. In the mean time, one Satya Ranjan Saha tried to intervene claiming interest on the property in question. Initially he was successful in stalling the process.

(3.) THE said Satya Ranjan Saha claiming to have right, title and interest of the Madhyamgram property approached the learned Judge for recall of an order dated September 29, 1995 by which the learned Judge put the appellant in possession. The said application came up before the learned Single Judge on February 17, 1999. His Lordship recorded the fact, the appellant had already obtained possession of the plot of the land with Police help and certificate of possession had already been granted to the said effect. Hence, nothing would remain in the application. His Lordship dismissed the same and allowed the application of the appellant for conclusion of sale by executing conveyance in respect of 0.94 decimals of land.