Ranjit Kumar Deka vs Dhiraj Choudhury And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 3750 Gua

                                                                               Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010203122023




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                    Case No. : RSA/168/2023

              RANJIT KUMAR DEKA
              S/O LATE PANKAJ KUMAR DEKA,
              RESIDENT OF SIV BARI ROAD, AMOLAPATTY, BARPETA TOWN, PO, PS
              AND DIST BARPETA, ASSAM 781301

              VERSUS

              DHIRAJ CHOUDHURY AND ANR.
              S/O LATE DEBENDRA NATH CHOUDHURY,
              RESIDENT OF DAKSHINHATI, WARD NO 12, BARPETA TOWN, PO, PS AND
              DIST BARPETA, ASSAM 781301

              2:STATE BANK OF INDIA
               BARPETA BRANCH
               REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER
               PO
               PS AND DIST BARPETA ASSAM 78130

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. K R PATGIRI

Advocate for the Respondent :


                                     BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

                                            ORDER

Date : 15.09.2023

Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the appellant.

The appeal is admitted for hearing upon the following substantial question of law.

Page No.# 2/2

I. Whether the learned first appellant court is right in allowing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in a suit for specific performance of contract by applying the provision of Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act?

II. Whether the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court without testify the readiness and willingness to perform the plaintiff's part of the contract by applying the provisions of Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is perverse?

III. Whether the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court regarding proof of agreement for sale and no proof is required like the sale deed is justified (paragraph-43 of the judgment and decree) and thereby reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court?

IV. Whether the learned first appellate court is right in allowing the appeal preferred by the plaintiff by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in a suit of specific performance of contract without proof of sale permission obtained from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta (Exhibit-4)?

Issue notice returnable in four weeks.

The appellant shall take step for service of notice upon the respondents by registered post with AD within three days.

Call for the LCR.

List the matter after four weeks.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant