ARUN SHARMA Vs. BHUPEN HAZARIKA (DAS)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. H.K. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on call for the respondent although their names are reflected in the cause list.

(2.) This appeal under Sec. 96 read with Order 41, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.05.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat in T.S. No. 31/2007, thereby dismissing the suit filed by the appellant. The appellant/plaintiff had filed T.S. No. 31/2007 before the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat for breach of the agreement of purchase, confirmation of right, title and interest, for ejectment and recovery of possession, compensation, injunction etc.

(3.) The case of the appellant as per the plaint is that he was the owner of having right, title and interest over the plot of land measuring 4 Katha 16 Lessas, covered by Dag No. 1294 of Periodic Patta No. 338 of Kumar Kaibartagaon under Gurmur Mouza, Jorhat, which is described in Schedule-1 of the plaint. There is an Assam type "L" designed house comprising nine rooms standing on the said suit land. The appellant at the relevant time was 70 years old was in urgent need of money and wanted to sale his land to the defendant at the sale consideration of Rs. 7,50,000.00 (Rupees Seven Lakh fifty thousand only). The defendant paid Rs. 1,00,000.00 (Rupees One lakh only) as advance and the parties entered into an unregistered agreement for sale dated 04.07.2005. The balance sale consideration of Rs. 6,50,000.00 (Rupees Six Lakh fifty thousand only) was to be paid within one month and the registration of the sale deed and balance amount was required to be paid at the time of deed of conveyance. It is submitted that in the Agreement for Sale, the Dag number of land was wrongly written as Dag No. 614 instead of Dag No. 1294. Pursuant to the agreement, the plaintiff handed over the possession of the suit land described in Schedule-1 of the plaint to the defendant. However, the sale could not be completed within the stipulated period of one month. It is projected that the plaintiff handed over the signed forms for sale permission for the suit land along the photocopy of jamabandi, land revenue receipt, etc. to the defendant to enable him to apply for the sale permission. Although the plaintiff expressed his willingness and readiness to perform his part of contract to execute the proposed sale deed but the defendant did not come forward to make the payment and therefore, the sale could not be completed.