LALIT MOHAN Vs. LAL MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This plaintiff's second appeal is from the appellate judgment and decree of the Addl. District Judge, Tripura at Agartala dismissing the plaintiff's appeal and upholding the Munsiff's judgment and decree dismissing the suit. The Title Suit No. 14 of 1970 was for specific performance of contract of reconveyance of land sold to the defendants by the plaintiff on 26-5-1969 at a consideration of Rs. 2,500/-. The defendants 1 to 4 had also executed an agreement on the same date i.e. 26-5-1969 to the effect that they would reconvey the land to the plaintiff on payment of the consideration money to the defendants within 30th day of Ashadh, 1377 B. S.; and that thereafter even though the plaintiff tendered the consideration money to the defendants during the stipulated period, the latter neither accepted the money nor did execute the deed of reconveyance as agreed and that too even after a pleader's notice.

(2.) The suit was originally instituted against the defendants 1 to 4 who filed a joint written statement. The defendant 5 was impleaded at his instance and he filed a separate written statement saying, inter alia, that he did not sign any agreement to reconvey the land; that the agreement signed by defendants 1 to 4 would not bind him and that there was no partition of the suit land among the co-sharers. In their written statement the defendants 1 to 4 stated that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary party as the heirs of one Banamali who were in possession of the suit land were not impleaded. The trial Court framed the following 7 issues :-

(3.) Mr. P. M. Palit, the learned counsel for the appellant submits, inter alia, that the defendants 1 to 4 having not denied their execution of the agreement for reconveyance and the defendant 1 having even deposed that the defendants 1 to 4 had no objection to reconvey their shares to the plaintiff and the heirs of Banamali having been upon the land even since before it was sold by the plaintiffs to the defendants, the learned Courts below erred in law in not decreeing the suit for specific performance at least to the extent of the shares of defendants 1 to 4 and subject to whatever right the heirs of Banamali might have had upon the lands.