RAKHAL CHAKROBORTY Vs. SANJIB KUMAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An agreement entered into between the appellant and the respondent, being close relatives, to sell and purchase prqperty with a view to help out each other, turned out to be a cause of distress and irretriervable bad feelings between them, culminating into litigation, which is being fought out by them for the last about a decade. It is nothing but complex human nature which quite often ignores all considerations when confronted with clash of interest. This is one of such cases in hand.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the defendant/respondent owing a plot of land under Patta No. 834 and Dag No. 840 in the last Settlement Operation in 1987, with an Assam Type House standing over it as described in Scheduled-B to the plaiint, started R.C.C. construction over a part of the land in front of the Assam Type house which is standing over the plot; but fell short of finance. The plaintiff, who is none else but the husband of his wife's sister, agreed to purchase the back portion of the land along with the Assam Type house, for a total sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the defendant as advance and the balance amount of Rs.75,000/ - was to be paid later. An agreement was executed and signed between the husbands of the two sisters, namely, the plaintiff and the defendant, on 11.9.1987. The sale deed was to be registered after payment of the balance amount of Rs.75,000/- As destined, things did not happen as they were thought to be, namely, the defendant did not receive the money, nor the sale deed was registered in favour of the plaintiff, giving rise to filing of Title Suit No. 142 of 1989 by the plaintiff/appellant, Rakhal Chakraborty, against the defendant/respond-ent, Sanjib Kumar Roy, praying for a decree for specific performance of the contract of sale of suit land and for a direction to the defendant to execute and register the sale deed on receipt of the balance amount of consideration through the court, and in case of failure to execute the sale deed within the time specified, the sale deed may be executed and registered by the court transferring the suit land as described in Schedule B to the plaint. The trial court, namely, Assistant District Judge No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati, dismissed the suit and passed a decree for refund of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of specific performance of the contract. The trial Court recorded a finding that the agreement in question was not intended to be enforced as it was a mere paper transaction and the plaintiff had no cause of action for the suit except that the plaintiff was entitled for recovery of Rs.50,000/- which was given as a loan to the defendant.

(3.) We feel that there is no occasion, nor it is necessary for us to go into the details of the findings recorded by the trial court, or to enter into the question of their correctness in view of the judgment and findings of the first appellate court in the appeal preferred by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment of the trial Court. The First Appeal No. 5 of 1994, against the judgment and decree dated 22.12.93 passed by the Assistant District Judge, was decided and dismissed by the judgment dated 8.8.97 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, against which the present L.P.A. No. 57 of 1997 has been filed.