RENUBALA DAS (DHAR) AND HER LEGAL HEIRS OF NAGENDRA LAL DAS AND ORS. Vs. GOPENDRA CH. CHANDA AND HIS LEGAL HEIRS OF BABY RANI CHANDA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard MS. R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. So far the respondents are concerned, none has appeared. From the case record, it is seen that the sole respondent Bhupen Ch. Chanda died and the appellant filed applications for substitution of the sole respondent by his legal heirs. However, there was delay in filling the substitution petition including setting aside the abatement and as such a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was also filed which was numbered as I.A. 877/2015. From the office note in I.A. No. 877/2015, more specifically office note dated 03/10/2015 it is apparent that due notices were served upon the substituted legal heirs of Late Bhupen Ch. Chanda. Though, the said legal heirs were not represented in the said I.A. No. 877/2015 even then this Court considering the office note dated 03/10/2015 allowed to condone the delay in preferring the substitution petition and for setting aside the abatement thereof. Accordingly, the names of the legal heirs of the sole respondent Late Bhupen Ch. Chanda have been recorded in the present second appeal. As the said substituted legal heirs failed to enter appearance in this appeal and considering this appeal to be an old pending one this matter has been taken up for hearing and disposal thereof.

(2.) Late Bhupen Ch. Chanda, the plaintiff/respondent filed Title Suit No. 43/1988 in the then Court of the learned Civil Judge (J.D) No. 1, Karimganj, against the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant Late Renubala Dhar and her sister, Smti Archana Chakraborty (Dhar) for specific performance of contract of an oral agreement dated 03/01/1996 with respect to sale of a plot of land mentioned in the Schedule of the plaint. The plaintiff/respondent stated that the appellant/defendants were the owners of the suit land and both the plaintiff/respondent and the defendant/appellant jointly entered into an agreement for sale of the suit land verbally in presence of Binoy Krishna Chanda and others and price of suit land was fixed at Rs. 11,000/- which the defendant/appellants had already received on 05/01/1996 in presence of the said Binoy Krishna Chanda and others. On receipt of the consideration the defendant/appellant delivered possession of the suit land on the same date i.e on 05/01/1996 in presence of the persons aforesaid. Further, it is pleaded that the suit land which is agricultural one and for the purpose of obtaining sale permission both the parties i.e plaintiff/respondent and the defendant/appellants signed the permission application form on 05/01/1996 which was handed over to the scribe one Hafiz Abdul Jalil. Subsequently, the defendant/appellants failed to act as per oral contract dated 03/01/1996 and as such the suit was filed with the following prayers:-

(3.) The defendant/appellants contested the suit by filling joint written statement and pleaded that there was no cause of action for the suit and the suit was not maintainable. Further defence of defendant/appellant was also that the suit land along with some other land was inherited by the defendant/appellant from their father and that the defendant/appellant got the suit land cultivated by the engaged labour for cultivation of 'Sali' paddy thereon. Further defence of the appellant/defendants was that the plaintiff/respondent who was a retired BSF jawan entered into his service through the father of the appellant/defendants. After death of the father of the appellant/defendant the plaintiff/respondent acted as a mediator in transfer of land of the defendant/appellants and at that time the plaintiff/respondent handled documents of defendant/appellants properties. It was also pleaded that there was no agreement with the plaintiff/respondent and the defendant/appellants for sale of suit land and that the agreement for sale or transaction of money or delivery of possession to the plaintiff/respondent were totally false and as such the suit was liable to be dismissed.