SHRI CHETAN SHARMA Vs. MRS. JANUKI PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the legality and validity of the impugned Judgment dated 28.04.2017 of the learned District Judge, Special Division-I, Sikkim at Gangtok, in Title Suit No. 21 of 2013 [Januki Pradhan Vs. Chetan Sharma and Sikkim Industrial DevelopmentInvestment Corporation (SIDICO)], the Appellant (Defendant No. 1 before the learned Trial Court) is before this Court.

(2.) Urging this Court to set aside the impugned Judgment, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant advanced the arguments that the learned Trial Court failed to consider that the Respondent No.1 (the Plaintiff before the learned Trial Court) could not have purchased the area of 5960 sq.ft. from the owners of the land since it had been leased out to M/s Agarwal Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. (for brevity 'Agarwal Industries') in 1984 for a period of 25 (twenty-five) years and the lease period extended thereafter. That, clause (iv) of the Lease Deed between the Lessors i.e. Majhi brothers and the Lessee i.e. Agarwal Industries, specifically debarred the lessor from selling, mortgaging, transferring or assigning in any manner to any other person, whatsoever any part or the whole of the land, without the express consent of the lessee. However, the Sale Deed, Exhibit-1, between the six Majhi brothers and the Respondent No.1 was executed on 07.08.2006, during the subsistence of the lease, thereby making it an invalid sale. Placing further reliance on Exhibit-1, it was contended that Rule 20 of Sikkim State Rules, Registration of Document, 1930, provides that registration of documents ought to be completed within four month of its execution. Exhibit-1 would reveal that the sale was executed on 07.08.2006 but registration was completed only on 15.11.2010, thereby rendering the document and its execution invalid. The thrust of the argument of learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant was that the Appellant herein is the Caretaker-cum-Chowkidar of Agarwal Industries with no rights over the suit property, hence it was the bounden duty of the learned Trial Court to implead Agarwal Industries and the Majhi brothers as necessary parties to the suit in view of the afore stated circumstances. Since, the suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties and other grounds put forth, the impugned Judgment be set aside. To buttress his arguments, reliance was placed on Razia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar and others AIR 1958 SC 886 (V 45 C 122), Shri Kuldip Singh Vs. Smt. Balwant Kaur (deceased) represented by her L.R. (i) Smt. Surinder Kaur and others AIR 1991 Punjab and Haryana 291, Chuba Temsu Ao and others Vs. Nangponger and others AIR 1994 Gauhati 110, Terai Tea Co. Ltd. Vs. Kumkum Mittal and others AIR 1994 Calcutta 191, Kameshwar Choudhary and etc. Vs. State of Bihar and others AIR 1998 Patna 141 and Poonam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2016) 2 SCC 779.

(3.) In contra, the arguments canvassed by learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 was that in the first instance, it is evident from "Schedule-A" to the Plaint that the suit property is confined to the factory-shed on the plot of land and does not concern the land purchased by her, hence the Appeal deserves a dismissal on this ground alone. That, the suit property is described as follows;