NIRENDRA CH DAS Vs. JUGOMAYA NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20th March, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Cachar at Silcahr in Title Suit No.39/1995, whereby and whereunder the suit filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed.

(2.) THE present appellant as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.135/1992 in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge (now Civil Judge), Cachar at Silchar, which was renumbered as Title Suit No.39/1995 on being transferred to the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Cachar at Silchar, against the present respondents as defendants praying for a decree for realization of Rs.52,500/- with pendentelite and future interest @ 22% per annum being the advance amount paid pursuant to the agreement for sale of the land measuring 5 Kathas 6 Chataks described in Schedule to the plaint, contending inter- alia that an agreement for sale was executed by the defendants' successor-in-interest, Prahallad Ch. Nath, on 7th April, 1992 (Exhibit-10) for sale of the said land in favour of the plaintiff/appellant for an amount of Rs.1,07,500/- and out of the said amount, Rs.50,000/- was paid as advance on the date of execution of the agreement and thereafter, another sum of Rs.2,500/- was paid in cash to meet the necessary expenditure for obtaining the copies of the documents. It has further been contended that though under the said agreement, the defendants promised to execute the deed of sale after obtaining permission from the competent authorities, within 5(five) months from the date of execution of the agreements for sale, the plaintiff after receipt of the copies of the Jamabandi from the defendants could notice that the land for which such agreement was entered into does not belong to the defendants alone as there were other pleaders, namely Padmaluchan Nath and Ramesh Ch. Nath, who are the brothers of the defendants' predecessor-in-interest. According to the plaintiff, since the defendants have no clear title over the property, he asked the defendants for refund of the said amount, which having not been done, the suit has been instituted. The plaintiff also in the plaint has averred that after the said initial agreement dated 7th April, 1992, another agreement for sale was executed on 4th May, 1992 (Exhibit-2), which was registered. According to the plaintiff, the same was executed for the purpose of taking loan from his employer, namely Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited.

(3.) WHILE the plaintiff in support of his case examined 4(four) witnesses and exhibited 19(nineteen) documents, the defendants examined 5(five) witnesses and proved Exhibit-A to Exhibits-G/1 to G/4.