NIBASH CH SAHA Vs. CHAMPA LAL LADHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a statutory first appeal preferred by the defendant-appellants in T.S. 16 of 2004, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala thereby decreeing the suit of the plaintiff-respondents by the impugned judgment and order dated 4-1-2005.

(2.) We have heard Mr. D.R. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the defendant-appellants and Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent.

(3.) The pleaded case of the plaintiff in the suit is that the defendant entered into an agreement on 13-6-2003 for sale of the suit land measuring 1550 sq. ft. responding to 1 ganda 3 kara 101/2 dhurs, according to local measurement, covered by Khatian No. 10978 passed in CS Plot No. 12279, Mouja Agartala sheet No. 14 with two storied building standing thereon. The price of the land was fixed at Rs. 18 lakhs out of which Rs. 5 lakh was paid as earnest money on the date of agreement. It is stipulated in the agreement that, among other things, upon receipt of the remaining consideration on or before 31-10-2003 the sale transaction would be completed and defendant would deliver the vacant possession of the suit land and building to the plaintiff. An amount of Rs. 15,000/- was again received by the defendant No. 1 being additional earnest money and the plaintiff paid Rs. 5,15,001/- in total, to the defendant as earnest money. The first floor and three rooms on the ground floor of the suit building were under occupation of tenants. Three rooms in the ground floor are in occupation of the defendant where they are residing. In the meantime, the plaintiff having repaid the security/advance money to the two tenants in the ground floor they surrendered their possession to the defendants on which the plaintiff requested the defendants to complete the sale transaction on or before 31-10-2003 upon receipt of the remaining amount of consideration money. On 12-10-2003 the plaintiff offered to complete the sale transaction but the defendant proposed to extend the period of agreement up to 31-12-2003 and assured the plaintiff that is tenant in the first floor of the suit building would surrender vacant possession thereof during the period and they would be in a position to complete the sale transaction. The plaintiff having agreed to the proposal the date of transaction was extended up to 31-12-2003 by an oral agreement between the parties. The plaintiff thereafter again met the defendant on 19-12-2003 and requested him to complete the transaction in terms of the agreement but the defendant No. 1 requested the plaintiff to wait up to 15th January, 2004 so that in the meantime, they can make alternative arrangement for their staying. The plaintiff having agreed to the said proposal the agreement was further extended to 15th January, 2004.