S.T. GYALTSEN Vs. KALU TAMANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgement and decree both dated 30.03.2019 passed by the learned First Appellate Court.

(2.) The original suit for declaration, specific performance of contract, mandatory injunction, and other consequential reliefs under Section 10 and 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 read with Section 9 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) was filed by the appellant (the plaintiff) against three defendants including the present respondent who was defendant no.2 therein. For clarity the parties will be referred as the plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff had prayed for:

(3.) It was the case of the plaintiff that he had negotiated the deal for purchase of the suit land through Kalden Bhutia (P.W.2) his constituted attorney and purchased 9.22 acres of land from one late Sonam Topgay Kazi after executing a registered sale deed dated 04.10.2010 (exhibit- P1). The plaintiff contended that he owned large area of dry field covered by plot nos. 205, 207, 208, 209, 2011, 220, 221, 222, 220/813 and 220/814 measuring 9.14 acres. The plaintiff stated that out of plot no.221 two plots measuring (60 feet x 60 feet) and (80 feet x 60 feet) were alienated in favour of his relative, Hissey Doma Yongda and his daughter, Kesang Diki Gyaltsen. The plaintiff averred that the defendants had 'kutcha' mud houses in plot no.207 and the defendant no.2's mud house covered plinth area measuring about 40 feet x 25 feet. The total area of land that had the houses of the defendants was the suit land. The plaintiff stated that after various negotiations an amicable settlement was arrived at between the appellant and the defendants. According to the plaintiff this agreement was entered into prior to the execution of the sale deed on 04.10.2010 (exhibit-P1). It was asserted that pursuant to the agreements the plaintiff also paid various sums of money to various persons as enumerated in the plaint. Although the rest of the families who had entered into the agreements moved to plot no 222 owned by the plaintiff, the defendants declined to do so. Ultimately this dispute led to the filing of the suit against the defendants.