Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 16 (GAU)

Shyamal Sarmah v. Ramen Sarmah

2016-01-07

SUMAN SHYAM

body2016
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Suman Shyam, J. This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent judgment and decree dated 09.01.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Title Appeal No.4/2008 whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2007 passed by the Munsiff, Tezpur, Sonitpur in Title Suit No.104/2002 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff was affirmed by the learned First Appellate Court. 2. The Second Appeal preferred by the plaintiff as appellant had been admitted to be heard on the following substantial questions of law :- "1. Whether the findings of the Courts below are bad due to the finding that the suit is barred by Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and failure to consider that the suit was filed within the period prescribed under Article 64 of the Limitation Act, 1963? 2. Whether the findings of the Courts below are bad for non-application of the provision of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in the instant suit? 3. Whether the burden of proof as to ownership as provided under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was considered by the Courts below?" 3. The brief facts, shorn of unnecessary details, is that the plaintiff had entered into a registered deed of agreement for sale bearing No.1350 of 1989 for purchasing the suit land measuring 4 kathas 9 lechas belonging to the defendant for a total consideration of Rs.51,000/-. At the time of execution of the agreement for sale an advance amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant whereafter possession of the said land was also delivered to the plaintiff by the defendant. It was mutually agreed by and between the parties that the balance amount of Rs.31,000/- would be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant at the time of registration of the sale deed. Although the defendant was required to obtain the necessary sale permission for execution of the sale deed, yet, he could not do so till the end of 1993. On the contrary the defendant had received further amount of Rs.33,000/- from the plaintiff on 15.12.1993 citing requirement of money. In this manner, the plaintiff had paid the entire sale consideration amount to the defendant with the bona fide expectation that the sale deed would be duly executed by the defendant. On the contrary the defendant had received further amount of Rs.33,000/- from the plaintiff on 15.12.1993 citing requirement of money. In this manner, the plaintiff had paid the entire sale consideration amount to the defendant with the bona fide expectation that the sale deed would be duly executed by the defendant. However, on account of his inability to obtain the sale permission the defendant had put his signature on the chita book maintained by the office of Circle Officer, Tezpur Revenue Circle as a token of acknowledgement of the proposed transfer of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. Based on such signature in the chita book, the plaintiff had also got his name duly mutated in respect of the suit land by the order dated 09.01.1997 and thereafter, has been in continuous possession of the same by paying the land revenue. 4. On 07.12.1999 the defendant had all of a sudden instituted a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Executive Magistrate, Tezpur, registered and numbered as Misc. Case No.94/145/99 alleging illegal dispossession of the suit land and on the basis of such application the land was put under attachment. Subsequently, at the intervention of the defendant, mutation of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land was also cancelled by the Circle Officer without his knowledge. From the aforesaid conduct of the defendant it had become apparent that the defendant did not have any intention of executing the registered deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff pertaining to the suit land. Such being the position, the plaintiff was compelled to institute the Title Suit No.104/2002 praying for a decree declaring his right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land and also for a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to execute a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within a specific period of time pertaining to the suit land mentioned in the schedule to the plaint. 5. On receipt of summons in connection with the Title Suit, the defendant had appeared and filed his written statement questioning the maintainability of the suit by raising several technical pleas. In his written statement the defendant has practically denied the execution of the deed of conveyance in favour of the plaintiff as well as the receipt of any amount from the plaintiff as the consideration amount for selling the suit land. In his written statement the defendant has practically denied the execution of the deed of conveyance in favour of the plaintiff as well as the receipt of any amount from the plaintiff as the consideration amount for selling the suit land. According to the defendant, on 07.12.1999 the plaintiff, being accompanied by his associates, had made an attempt to dispossess the defendant from the suit which had led to the institution of the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. wherein the disputed land was put to attachment. The defendant has denied the right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. On such basis the defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties the learned Court below had framed the following nine issues :- "1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable? 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 5. Whether the defendant received total amount of Rs.53,000/- from the plaintiff, the price of the land on different dates? 6. Whether the plaintiff has acquired any right, title and interest over the suit land? 7. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land? 8. Whether the plaintiff will get decree as prayed for? 9. What other relief (s) the parties are entitled?" 7. During the course of trial the plaintiff's side had examined six witnesses and produced documentary evidence whereas the defendant's sides had examined three witnesses and has also exhibited some documents. On appreciation of the evidence on record the learned trial Court had recorded findings in respect of Issue Nos. 6 and 3 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant by holding that the plaintiff had not acquired any right, title and interest over the suit land and that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by law of limitation. 8. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in Title Suit No.104/2002 the plaintiff as appellant had preferred Title Appeal No.4/2008 before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur. After hearing the parties the learned Lower Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 9. After hearing the parties the learned Lower Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 9. Being aggrieved by the concurrent judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court the plaintiff as appellant has approached this Court by filing the instant Second Appeal. 10. I have heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. T. C. Khatri, learned senior counsel representing the respondent. 11. By referring to the findings recorded by the learned Court below with regard to Issue Nos. 3 and 6 Mr. Sarma submits that in holding that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by limitation the Court below fell into serious error of law by failing to appreciate that the period of limitation in respect of a suit for specific performance of contract, where there is no date fixed for performance, would run from the date on which the plaintiff had noticed that the performance is refused. In the instant case the agreement for sale did not have any fixed date for performance. As such, in the absence of any finding to the effect that the plaintiff had failed to approach the Court by filing the suit within a period of three years from the date on which he had noticed that the performance is refused, the findings recorded in respect of Issue No.3 is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such liable to be interfered with. 12. As regards the conclusion recorded by the Court below pertaining to Issue No.6, Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that a perusal of the pleadings as well as the prayer made in the plaint would go to show that the plaintiff had, over and above praying for a declaratory decree, had also prayed for a decree directing the defendant to execute a registered deed of sale pertaining to the suit land. However, ignoring the aforesaid prayer made by the plaintiff, the learned Court below has illegally decided the Issue No.6 against the plaintiff in a most perfunctory manner by holding that the plaintiff had not acquired any title over the suit land. However, ignoring the aforesaid prayer made by the plaintiff, the learned Court below has illegally decided the Issue No.6 against the plaintiff in a most perfunctory manner by holding that the plaintiff had not acquired any title over the suit land. He submits that having regard to the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below regarding the execution of the registered deed of agreement for sale and also the findings in Issue No.7 holding that the plaintiff has been in continuous physical possession of the suit land, the learned Court below ought to have considered the prayer of the plaintiff for passing a decree against the defendant for execution of a registered deed of sale. 13. Per contra, Mr. Khatri, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant, submits that even assuming that the findings as regards execution of the registered deed of agreement for sale as well as the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land remains undisturbed even then the plaintiff has evidently failed to produce any document of title so as to substantiate his claim of title over the suit land. The plaintiff had also not prayed for any decree for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 29.06.1989. Such being the position, there was no scope for the Court below to grant any relief to the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the case and as such the judgment and decree under appeal does not suffer from any infirmity. Mr. Khatri, therefore, submits that the substantial questions of law framed by this Court do not arise for a decision in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 14. I have considered the rival submissions made by and on behalf of the learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. From a careful scrutiny of the judgment and decree passed by the Court below it is apparent that both the Courts below have recorded a finding of fact to the effect that the registered deed of agreement for sale dated 29.06.1989 was, in fact, executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for transfer of the suit land for valuable consideration pursuant whereto the plaintiff has been put in possession of the suit land. It is not in dispute that the agreement for sale dated 29.06.1989 did not fix any date of performance therein. It is not in dispute that the agreement for sale dated 29.06.1989 did not fix any date of performance therein. In such view of the matter, the period of limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would run from the date on which the plaintiff had noticed that the performance is refused. From a perusal of the judgment and order passed by the Court below it appears that the learned Lower Appellate Court had computed the period of limitation of three years having regard to the date of execution of the document without recording any finding of fact as to on which date it had come to the notice of the plaintiff that the performance of the agreement was refused. Such being the possession the decision and conclusion recorded by the Court below as regards the Issue No.3 holding the suit of the plaintiff to be barred by limitation does not appear to be correct in the facts and circumstances of the case. 15. Coming to the findings recorded with regard to Issue No.6, it is a fact that there is no sale deed executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff pertaining to the suit land in terms of the agreement for sale dated 29.06.1989 and it is for such reason that the plaintiff had approached the Court below by filing the Title Suit. From the pleadings contained in the plaint what is apparent is that the suit of the plaintiff in the facts and circumstances of the case ought to have been treated as one for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 29.06.1989. However, the learned Court below while deciding the Issue No.6 did not consider the relief prayed for by the plaintiff for execution and registration of a sale deed in respect of the suit land. From a perusal of the prayers made in the plaint I am unable to accept the contention made by Mr. Khatri, learned counsel for the respondent, to the effect that the plaint did not contain any prayer for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 29.06.1989. From a perusal of the prayers made in the plaint I am unable to accept the contention made by Mr. Khatri, learned counsel for the respondent, to the effect that the plaint did not contain any prayer for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 29.06.1989. In prayer No. ii the plaintiff has categorically prayed as follows :- "ii) For mandatory injunction mandating the defendant to execute registration of the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff within a specific period in respect of the suit land as described in the schedule hereunder;" Although the aforesaid relief has been couched in a different language, yet, in substance what the plaintiff had prayed for is a decree directing the defendant to execute a registered deed of sale in favour of the plaintiff pertaining to the suit land in terms of the agreement dated 29.06.1989. The aforesaid prayer is also adequately supported by the pleadings contained in paragraph 20 of the plaint which leaves no manner of doubt that the plaintiff had, in essence, sought a decree of specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 29.06.1989 by directing the defendant to execute the registered deed of sale. By failing to appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the learned Lower Appellate Court had fell into serious error in law in proceeding with the suit on an assumption that there was no relief prayed by the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement for sale. 16. The findings of the Court below as regards Issue No.6 is not sustainable also for another reason. While deciding the Issue No.3 the Court below had proceeded on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff was one for specific performance of contract for sale wherein the provisions of Article 54 of the Limitation Act would be attracted. However, while answering the issues on merit the learned Court below had ignored the fact that the suit of the plaintiff, in essence, was one for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 29.06.1989. 17. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such the same is hereby set aside. 18. 17. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court is not sustainable in the eye of law and as such the same is hereby set aside. 18. Considering the fact that the learned Court below had failed to appreciate issues in the correct perspective as indicated herein above, I am of the considered opinion that the first appeal is now required to be decided afresh based on the evidence available on record. Such being the position, the Title Appeal No.4 of 2008 is remanded back to the Lower Appellate Court for a fresh decision of the appeal based on evidence available on record. The Court below would now decide the suit of the plaintiff by considering the same as one for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 29.06.1989 and also answer the Issue No.3 by recording a finding as to the date on which the plaintiff had noticed refusal of performance of the contract by the defendant. In deciding the Appeal, the Court below would also bear in mind the effect and impact of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act in the facts and circumstances of the case while deciding the contentious issues and in doing so, if necessary, the Lower Appellate Court may recast the issues framed by the trial Court. 19. Considering the fact that the suit is one pertaining to the year 2002, an endeavour may be made to dispose of the appeal within a period of six months from the date of receipt of records. Since the parties are present before this Court today and as agreed to by both the parties, they would now appear before the Lower Appellate Court on 22.02.2016 for receiving further orders from the Lower Appellate Court. Office to send back the records expeditiously. Parties to bear their own cost.