PUTUL RANI GOSWAMI Vs. KANAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has arisen from the judgment dated 20. 5. 97 of the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No. 25 of 1996 dismissing the appeal and affirming the decree for specific performance by the Subordinate Judge, West Tripura, Agartala by judgment dated 11. 6. 80 in Title Suit No. 17 of 71.

(2.) THE original respondent herein was Sri Amulya Ranjan Das. After his death during pendency of this second appeal, his wife, son and daughter have been impleaded as the respondents. The appellant herein Smt. Putul Rani Goswami is one of the two daughters of Satish Chandra Bhattacharjee. Amulya Ranan Das filed Title Suit No. 17 of 71 in the court of Subordinate Judge, Agartala, West Tripura for a decree against Satish Chandra directing him to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the land measuring 18 gandas 2 karas appertaining to jote No. 179 of Krishnanagar, town sheet No. 7 owned by Satish Chandra. A deed of agreement commonly known as 'baynapatra' was executed by Satish Chandra on 28. 7. 68 after receiving Rs. 10,000/- in advance out of the total price of Rs. 12,000/ -. In terms of the agreement, the plaintiff was to pay the balance amount within six months. On 2. 1. 69, well within time, another sum of Rs. 1000/- was paid after Satish Chandra was insisting for the money. A receipt was executed by Satish Chandra for Rs. 1,000/- on 2. 1. 69 whereby the time was extended for remaining of Rs. 1,000/- by six months more. The plaintiff thereafter approached Satish Chandra for execution of the sale deed on receiving the balance amount. But Satish Chandra was lukewarm in his response avoiding execution of the sale deed.

(3.) THERE was another development which complicated the issue. Satish Chandra lost his wife in 1950. He was left with two minor daughters aged 5 and 2 at the time of his wife's death. Smt. Putul Rani Goswami, the appellant herein is the elder daughter and Smt. Mukul Rani Bhattacharjee, the second respondent, is the younger one. The two daughters, after they had grown major and got married, locked in a battle against their father claiming that the entire land measuring 1 kani 7 ganda 1 kara 1 kranta 16 dhur of the said jote No. 179 was transferred to them by a gift deed executed by Satish Chandra on 29. 7. 68. It would be seen that according to them, the gift deed was executed by their father one day after he had executed the deed of agreement in favour of the plaintiff for sale of 18 ganda 2 karas of the said jote. Before the Sub-Registrar, Satish Chandra denied execution of the gift deed and when registration was refused, the daughters preferred a registration appeal under Section 73 of the Indian Registration Act. During pendency of the said appeal, Satish Chandra instituted Title Suit No. 85 of 69 for declaring the gift deed as forged. Eventually following the compromise between the father and the daughters, the registration appeal was closed and the gift deed was not registered.