MD KHAIRUL ISLAM Vs. PUTUL KUMAR BORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M. H. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

(2.) This Second Appeal has been preferred against the concurrent judgment and decree dated 10.12.2014 passed by the learned District Judge, Nagaon in Title Appeal No.29/2013 affirming the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon in Title Suit No.45/2007 decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) The brief factual background of this case is that the appellant/ defendant is the owner of a plot of land measuring 9.66 lechas covered by Dag No.90 of Patta No.119 alongwith three rooms standing thereupon within Kachomari Mouza in the district of Nagaon, more fully described in the Schedule-A to the plaint. Being in need of money the defendant approached the respondent/ plaintiff with an offer to sell the land which was accepted by the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.2,20,000/-. Accordingly, a registered deed of agreement for sale bearing No.2104/06 dated 02.11.2006 was entered by and between the appellant/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff pursuant whereto the plaintiff had paid an amount of Rs.2 Lacs as consideration money with a further condition of paying the remaining Rs.20,000/- to the defendant at the time of registration of the sale deed by the defendant after obtaining necessary sale permission from the concerned authorities. It is the case of the plaintiff that despite several requests made to the defendant for making application for sale permission the defendant did not take any such step although the plaintiff had offered to pay the balance consideration amount of Rs.20,000/-. On 06.10.2007 when the plaintiff offered Rs.20,000/- to the defendant with a request to execute the sale deed, the defendant refused to accept the money thereby violating the conditions of the agreement for sale. As such, the plaintiff was compelled to serve an Advocate's notice on 17.10.2007 upon the defendant. However, since the Advocate's notice dated 17.10.2007 failed to evoke any response from the defendant, the plaintiff was compelled to institute the present suit, inter alia, praying for a decree of specific performance of contract and for other consequential reliefs.