GEETA PATRA Vs. BIRAKISHORE MOHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner -husband filed Title Suit No. 44 of 1993 in the Court of Subordinate Judge (Civil Judge, Senior Division) Puri, seeking the relief of specific performance of contract by defendants (two in numbers). After the suit was transferred to the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Puri, it has been renumbered as T.S. Case No. 143 of 1997 (i.e. Title Suit No. 44/143 of 1993 -97).

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner suit land is part of Balu Khand Khasmal in Puri township and late Ajit Kumar Mitra, father of Manojit Kumar Mitra (defendant No. 2) and late Ranjit Kumar Mitra, father of Ranjan Kumar Mitra (defendant No. 3) were the lessee for a period of 30 years commencing from 19.08.1939 as per the lease deed dated 29.1.1940. When application for renewal of the lease was pending, some other litigations came up and to overcome the same above named Ajit Mitra and Ranjan Mitra entered into agreement with plaintiff on 31.7.1981, inter alia, as the terms and conditions that they would sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/ -(rupees one lakh) and in furtherance thereof received an advance of Rs. 10,000/ - (rupees ten thousand) and necessary document would be executed after renewal of the lease and on obtaining permission from the Collector for sale and further that plaintiff would take care of all litigations including pending disputes raised against the title of the aforesaid two persons by any other person. During pendency of the renewal application Ajit Kumar Mitra died and in his place Manojit Kumar Mitra (defendant No. 2) was substituted and the renewal application was again moved. After order of renewal of the lease, plaintiff wrote to the defendants on 15.10.1991 to take steps for seeking permission of the Collector to transfer the property in favour of the plaintiff. When the defendants did not respond plaintiff instituted the suit in the year 1993 for specific performance of contract. Petitioner further stated that opposite party No. 1 ,viz., Birakishore Mohapatra filed application to be added as a defendant in the title suit on the ground that he purchased a portion of the suit land (to the extent of the share of the vendor) from Gita Rani Mitra, widow of Ajit Kumar Mitra. Petitioner also stated that plaintiff resisted that application, inter alia, on the ground of 'Lis Pendence' being hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (in short the 'T.P. Act').

(3.) BOTH the parties advanced argument in support of their respective stand and reiterated the same contention, which has been discussed and considered by the Courts below.