UDOR CHO SUM OF TASHIDING MONASTERY, WEST SIKKIM Vs. UDOR CHO SUM OF KARMA RABTENLING MONASTERY, SOUTH SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in this Revision Petition, assails the findings of the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No. 03 of 2015, dated 29.03.2016, rejecting its prayers in a Petition filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

(2.) It is urged before this Court that the Respondents herein failed to disclose a cause of action before the learned Trial Court, inasmuch as although it was claimed that the Suit was under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, however, no averment was made in terms of the provision of Section 16(c) to the effect that the Respondent has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him. To buttress her submissions on this aspect, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, placed reliance on Pt. Prem Raj v. The D.L.F. Housing and Construction (Private) Ltd. and another AIR 1968 SC 1355.

(3.) It was also canvassed that the Suit is barred by Law, as documents relied on by the Respondents viz. an "Agreement" allegedly drawn up between the Petitioners and Respondents on 15.04.2015, and a "Hathay Chitta" (Hand Note) purporting to be a Sale Deed document, have not been registered either in terms of the Sikkim State Rules, Registration of Document, 1930, or the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and is, therefore, invalid in the eyes of Law. That, as per the Circular of the Department of Ecclesiastical Affairs, Government of Sikkim dated 15th May, 1992, any action taken by any individual or the "Duchi" collectively concerning monastery lands, without clearance from the Ecclesiastical Department will be considered as unauthorized action, liable to be treated as null and void. Further, Section 25 of the Contract Act, 1872, lays down that an agreement without consideration is void unless it is in writing and registered or is a promise to compensate for something done or is a promise to pay the debt barred by limitation law. No consideration was made when the alleged agreement was drawn up and in fact, it is the case of the Respondents that the Suit property was sold by two monks, which is unsubstantiated by any proof. That, the Suit is vexatious and filed for the purpose of grabbing the land of the Petitioners and that the learned Trial Court erred in concluding that the Law point was confined only to the Law of Limitation, hence, the assailed Order be set aside.