Gauhati High Court
Joy Chandra Bhuyan vs On Thd Death Of Kumud Ranjan Medhi His ... on 15 July, 2025
Author: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Bench: Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010239942023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : RFA/50/2023
JOY CHANDRA BHUYAN
S/O LATE SARUKAN BHUYAN,
R/O HATIGAON CHARIALI, KARBI PATH, GITANAGAR, GUWAHATI- 24,
DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
VERSUS
ON THD DEATH OF KUMUD RANJAN MEDHI HIS LEGAL HEIR DIPTI
MEDHI
W/O LATE KUMUD RANJAN MEDHI,
R/O PANJABARI,
P.O. AND P.S.- DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 37, DIST.- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P K KALITA, MR M KALITA,MS N DUTTA
Advocate for the Respondent : FOR CAVEATOR, MR A BANERJEE,MR. A BISWAS,MR P K
BASU,MR. N SARKAR
Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/3500/2023
JOY CHANDRA BHUYAN
S/O LATE SARUKAN BHUYAN
R/O HATIGAON CHARIALI
KARBI PATH
GITANAGAR
GUWAHATI- 24
Page No.# 2/4
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
VERSUS
ON THD DEATH OF KUMUD RANJAN MEDHI HIS LEGAL HEIR DIPTI MEDHI
W/O LATE KUMUD RANJAN MEDHI
R/O PANJABARI
P.O. AND P.S.- DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 37
DIST.- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM.
------------
Advocate for : MR P K KALITA
Advocate for : FOR CAVEATOR appearing for ON THD DEATH OF KUMUD
RANJAN MEDHI HIS LEGAL HEIR DIPTI MEDHI
:: PRESENT ::
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
For the Appellant : Mr. P.K. Kalita,
Senior Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. A. Biswas,
Advocate.
Date of Hearing : 23.04.2025.
Date of Judgment : 15.07.2025.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(CAV)
Heard Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned senior counsel representing the appellant as well as Mr. A.
Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This is a Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) whereby
the judgment and decree dated 25.08.2023 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup
(M), Guwahati in Title Suit No.410/2015 is under challenge.
3. Being the plaintiff before the trial court, the appellant Joy Chandra Bhuyan filed the suit against
late Kumud Ranjan Medhi.
4. In the year 2013, late Kumud Ranjan Medhi claimed that he had saleable interest over a plot of
land measuring 1 katha 10 lechas covered by Dag No.221 (old)/968(new) of K.P. Patta
Page No.# 3/4
No.63(old)/368(new) of the revenue village Saukuchi under Beltola Mouza and wanted to sell the said
plot of land for a price of Rs.21,00,000/-. Joy Chandra Bhuyan agreed to purchase the said plot of land
as proposed by late Kumud Ranjan Medhi.
5. Both sides entered into an agreement for sale on 26.04.2013. On the date of execution of the said
agreement, Joy Chandra Bhuyan paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to late Kumud Ranjan Medhi as
advance. The possession of the land was also handed over to Joy Chandra Bhuyan.
6. On 27.07.2013, the wife of late Kumud Ranjan Medhi took another amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from
Joy Chandra Bhuyan. The said money was also taken as advance apart from the aforementioned
Rs.5,00,000/-.
7. Joy Chandra Bhuyan was always ready and willing to pay the remaining amount. Therefore, he
requested late Kumud Ranjan Medhi to execute the sale deed.
8. Thereafter, in the month of October, 2013, Joy Chandra Bhuyan discovered that the plot of land to
which he agreed to buy from late Kumud Ranjan Medhi measured 1 katha 7 ½ lechas only, not 1 katha
10 lechas as claimed by late Kumud Ranjan Medhi. It is claimed that the boundary of the plot of land
mentioned in the agreement dated 26.04.2013, did not tally with the sale permission dated 03.10.2013
obtained from GMDA. Therefore, Joy Chandra Bhuyan requested late Kumud Ranjan Medhi to
execute the registered sale deed by adjusting the consideration price for 1 katha 7 ½ lechas of land
instead of 1 katha 10 lechas of land. Joy Chandra Bhuyan also requested him to demarcate the actual
boundary of the said land.
9. Thereafter, on 23.06.2015, Mr. Khuwajur Rahman, the lawyer of late Kumud Ranjan Medhi
served a notice upon Joy Chandra Bhuyan alleging that Joy Chandra Bhuyan is not interested in
purchasing the land in spite of request made by late Kumud Ranjan Medhi. By the said notice, late
Kumud Ranjan Medhi asked Joy Chandra Bhuyan to pay the remaining sale price.
10. On 15.07.2015, Joy Chandra Bhuyan also sent a notice through his lawyer Sri B.C. Talukdar, to
late Kumud Ranjan Medhi wherein Joy Chandra Bhuyan informed him about the dissimilarity of the
boundary mentioned in the agreement dated 26.04.2013 and the sale permission dated 03.10.2013
issued by the GMDA. Joy Chandra Bhuyan also asked late Kumud Ranjan Medhi to execute the sale
deed in respect of 1 katha 7 ½ lechas of land after adjusting the sale price as mentioned in the
aforementioned agreement for sale.
11. The notice of Joy Chandra Bhuyan was not replied by late Kumud Ranjan Medhi. Therefore, Joy
Chandra Bhuyan filed the suit praying for a decree directing late Kumud Ranjan Medhi to execute the
sale deed for 1 katha 7 ½ lechas of land by deducting Rs.7,00,000/-.
12. Late Kumud Ranjan Medhi contested the suit by filing a written statement. It was claimed that in
spite of obtaining sale permission, Joy Chandra Bhuyan never came forward to pay the balance amount
for execution of a sale deed. Late Kumud Ranjan Medhi denied the allegation that the land which he
proposed to sell measured 1 katha 7 ½ lechas not 1 katha 10 lechas. According to late Kumud Ranjan
Medhi, the appellant Joy Chandra Bhuyan did not have sufficient money to pay the balance amount and
therefore, he used to put pressure upon the former to accept a lesser amount of money. Late Kumud
Ranjan Medhi alleged that for the aforesaid reason, Joy Chandra Bhuyan has been falsely claiming that
the plot of land measured only 1 katha 7 ½ lechas not 1 katha 10 lechas.
13. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:
i. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?
ii. Whether there was an agreement of sale dated 26.04.2013 executed between the plaintiff
Page No.# 4/4
and the defendant for sale and purchase of the suit land described in the plaint at sale
consideration of Rs.21 lakhs?
iii. Whether the plaintiff had paid Rs.7,00,000/- as an advance amount to the defendant out
of total sale consideration of Rs.21 lakhs?
iv. Whether the defendant refused to perform his part of the contract as per terms and
conditions of agreement of sale dated 26.04.2013?
v. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?
vi. Whether the plaintiff is financially capable of performing his part of contract?
vii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree of specific performance of contract as per
agreement of sale dated 26.04.2013?
viii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
ix. To what, other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?
14. In order to prove the case, Joy Chandra Bhuyan had examined 2 witnesses. Late Kumud Ranjan
Medhi also examined 2 witnesses.
15. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court dismissed the suit of Joy Chandra Bhuyan.
16. I have gone through the evidence as well as the impugned judgment. I find that the only point for
determination in this appeal is as to whether the land which Joy Chandra Bhuyan had agreed to
purchase from late Kumud Ranjan Medhi actually measured 1 katha 7 ½ lechas, not 1 katha 10 lechas,
as claimed by late Kumud Ranjan Medhi?
17. No issue to that effect has been framed and decided by the trial court. Therefore, the appeal is
allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside.
18. This is a fit case for remand. The case is remanded to the trial court of Civil Judge No.1,
Kamrup(M), Guwahati for framing an issue as observed hereinbefore and after deciding the said issue,
the trial court shall pass a fresh judgment on all issues, after hearing both sides.
19. With above direction, the present appeal as well as the Interlocutory Application are disposed of
accordingly.
Send back the LCR.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
