SUBHENDU DUTTA Vs. MADAN GOPAL GOSWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 8/12/2021 passed by the learned Judge, 7th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Money Suit No. 12756 of 2014 preferred by the plaintiff/respondent in the present appeal, being Madan Gopal Goswami (hereinafter referred to as Madan) against the defendants/appellants in the present appeal, being Subhendu Dutta (hereinafter referred to as Subhendu) and Subhas Chandra Dutta (hereinafter referred to as Subhas) stating inter alia that Subhas, his childhood friend, approached him to purchase a plot of land situated at village Mathrun, District- Burdwan in the name of his son being Subhendu. Upon negotiation, price was fixed at Rs.12,60,221.00. Prior to execution of the deed, Subhas paid Rs.10,000.00 and Rs.5,000.00 by two cheques in the month of April, 2010 and Rs.12,35,221.00 remained due. On the assurance of Subhas and reposing trust and faith upon him, Madan executed and registered the sale deed in favour of Subhendu on 24th of May 2000. After the deed was executed, Subhash paid Rs.50,000.00 and Rs.25,000.00 by two separate cheques issued in the month of July, 2011 but thereafter no further payment was made. Aggrieved thereby, Madan issued a letter to Subhendu requesting him to pay the balance amount of Rs.11,60,221.00 but in vain. However, in the midst thereof, Madan advanced an amount of Rs.4,30,000.00 to Subhas. Such fact was also admitted by Subhas through a letter dtd. 24/12/2013. On 27/12/2013 Madan received a letter from Subhendu stating that he had paid the entire consideration amount of Rs.12,60,221.00 at the time of registration. In the said conspectus, Madan was constrained to prefer the suit. In corroboration of the facts stated in the plaint, Madan examined himself as PW1 and exhibited seven documents marked as Exhibit nos. 1 to 7.

(2.) Both Subhendu and Subhas entered appearance in the said suit and filed separate written statements denying and disputing the contention of Madan. Subhendu in his written statement categorically stated that the full consideration money was paid to Madan before execution and registration of the deed of conveyance and that such fact would be explicit from the recitals of the deed. He also stated that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the property in question is situated at Burdwan. The deed was executed in the month of May, 2010 and the suit, having been preferred three years thereafter in the year 2014, is barred by limitation. It was also contended that his father had been illegally impleaded though he had no connection with the transaction in question. The payments made by Subhas had no connection with the sale deed as executed on 24/5/2010. In corroboration of the facts stated in the written statement, Subhendu examined himself as DW1 and exhibited the certified copy of the sale deed.

(3.) Subhas in his written statement stated that he was in no manner related with the transaction. For liquidating a loan of Rs.90,000.00 advanced to him by Madan, he paid a sum of Rs.15,000.00 on 21/4/2010 by cheque dtd. 21/4/2010, Rs.50,000.00 by cheque dtd. 20/4/2011 and Rs.25,000.00 by cheque dtd. 15/7/2011 all drawn on U.B.I. High Court Branch and such payment had no nexus with the sale deed. It was further stated that he was also advanced a loan of Rs.4,30,000.00 by Madan which he refunded by two cheques of Rs.2,50,000.00 and Rs.1,80,000.00 dtd. 12/9/2014 and 16th of April 2015 respectively.