JALAL UDDING SK. Vs. JOBBAR ALI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17-12-2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri in Title Appeal No. 18/2009 dismissing the title appeal thereby upholding the judgment and decree dated 22-01-2009 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Dhubri in Title Suit No. 119/1996.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff as projected in the plaint is that he had entered into an agreement for sale deed dated 09-03-1994 with the defendant Jalal Uddin Sk. for purchase of a plot of land measuring 2B-1K-5L covered by Dag No. 557 of Khatiyan No. 34 situated at village Jhaskal No. 3 under Agomoni circle, P.S. Golakganj in the district of Dhubri for a total sale consideration of Rs.20,000.00. At the time of execution of the agreement dated 09-03-1994 the plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.17,000.00 as advance and it was further agreed by and between the parties that the balance portion of Rs.3,000.00 would be paid by the plaintiff at the time of registration of the formal sale deed. After signing of the agreement for sale the plaintiff had approached the defendant on 10-05-1994, 15-08-1994 and again on 15-01-1995 requesting him to execute the sale deed and sign the necessary papers for sale permission and also to deliver the possession of the suit land in his favour by receiving the balance amount of Rs. 3,000.00 but the defendant refused to do so. As a result of the same the plaintiff was compelled to institute the present suit seeking specific performance of the agreement for sale deed dated 09-03-1994 and also for delivery of possession of the suit land.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement wherein the defendant had inter alia pleaded that suit land being within the radius of 1k.m. from the Indo-Bangla border, the relief claimed under the suit would be barred under the Rural Indebtedness Relief Act. The defendant also had denied having entered into any agreement for sale in respect of the suit land. On the contrary he has averred that he being in need of money for education of his son had approached the plaintiff seeking loan. Accordingly the plaintiff had paid him an amount of Rs.17,000.00 as a loan upon the suit land being mortgaged for 4 years. It was the pleaded stand of the defendant that he had delivered the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff and accordingly the plaintiff had used the suit land for 4 years and recovered a sum of Rs.40,000.00 as usufruct from the suit land. The plaintiff had further pleaded that the written agreement was entered upon by and between the parties at the instance of the plaintiff but it was also mutually agreed that the agreement for sale would not be acted upon and that it would not be enforceable in the eye of law.