SUSHILA DEVI KEDIA Vs. GYANENDRA KUMAR RAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant plaintiff in S.A. No. 14 of 1995 filed a suit against the respondent defendant for a decree for specific performance of contract seeking execution and registration of the sale deed in respect of 'B' Schedule property and a decree for eviction of the defendant from 'A Schedule property along with a decree for damages with regard to use and occupation of the 'A Schedule property.

(2.) After pleadings were complete, the learned trial Court framed issues and answering the same found that the defendant having entered into an agreement to execute and register the sale deed in respect of the 'B' Schedule property and having failed to perform his part of the contract and finding that the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance consideration, decreed the suit for specific performance of contract and directed that the defendant shall execute the sale deed in respect of 'B' Schedule property in favour of the appellant plaintiff on receipt of the balance consideration amount of Rs. 6000/-within three months from the date of the decree failing which the plaintiff is to deposit the said balance amount in the Court and get the sale deed executed and registered through Court. With regard to prayer for eviction, on analyzing the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court also decreed the suit and directed that the defendant shall vacate the possession over the 'A' Schedule property within three months and give possession of the same to the plaintiff failing which the plaintiff will be at liberty to evict the defendant from the 'A Schedule property through Court. The trial Court also decreed damages amounting to Rs. 2090/- for use and occupation of 'A' Schedule property, against the defendant, to be realized by the plaintiff. The defendant carried an appeal against the said judgment of the trial Court in Title Suit No. 176 of 1984, which was registered as Title Appeal No. 84 of 1993. The learned District Judge, Cuttack after hearing the appeal confirmed the decree for specific performance of the contract but reversed the decree with regard to eviction of the defendant from the 'A' Schedule land and the decree for damages. Being aggrieved, the appellant plaintiff has preferred Second Appeal No. 14 of 1995 challenging the judgment of the lower appellate Court reversing the decree passed by the learned trial Court with regard to eviction and damages. However, the respondent defendant has preferred Second Appeal No. 155 of 1995 against the judgment and decree of the Courts below by which the appellate Court confirmed the decree for specific performance of contract passed by the learned trial Court. S.A. No. 14 of 1995 has been admitted on the substantial questions of law mentioned in ground Nos. B, C, D and E of the appeal memo and S.A. No. 155 of 1995 has been admitted on the substantial question of law as to whether the learned Courts below have properly appreciated and determined the rights of the parties in terms of and on consideration of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant in S.A. No. 14 of 1995 submits that the learned lower appellate Court while dealing with the portion of the decree passed by the trial Court with regard to eviction and damages in a cryptic manner, by a short paragraph i.e. paragraph No. 14, held as follows :