IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DVN.): PANPOSH, AT UDITNAGAR, ROURKELA.
Civil Suit No. of 20007 ( I )
BETWEEN:
Sri Mochia Behera, aged about 62 years
S/o. late Dandapani Behera,
At - Qr. No. A/117, Sector-16,
P.S. - Sector-15, Rourkela-3,
Dist.- Sundargarh,
. . . Plaintiff.
- Versus -
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Puhan, aged about 40 years
S/o Sri Ganesh Chandra Puhan,
At- Qr. No.- A / 65, Sector - 20,
P.S. - Sector-19, Rourkela - 5,
Dist.- Sundargarh, Orissa.
. . . Defendant.
(The address of the plaintiff for service of all notices & processes is the same as stated above and care of Sri G.K. Behera, Advocate, Plot No. D/198, Sector - 7, C.D.A., Cuttack- 14. The address of the defendant for service of all notices & process is the same as stated above.)
The plaintiff above named begs to state as follows:
1. That the plaintiff is a retired Rourkela Steel Plant employee. He retired from service in the month of March of 2006. He was in search of a homestead land in the locality.
2. That the defendant is a businessman. He is the owner of the property, i.e., the homestead land, which is fully described in the schedule - ‘A’ below. He has been in peaceful possession of the same. He badly required of the money, for business as well as for medical expanses of his old ailing father. He was in search of a party to dispose of his land to whom.
3. That the son of the plaintiff and the defendant were doing their respective business in the same locality and in due course of the time both the parties came in to contact and knew to each other. In the last week of March 2006, the defendant made a proposal / an offer to the plaintiff to sell the suit schedule property for a total lawful consideration of Rs.1, 85, 000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty-five thousands) only. The plaintiff accepted the proposal of the defendant.
4. That accordingly on 28th day of March, 2006, having been competent to contract, both the defendant (the vendor/ seller/promisor) and the plaintiff (the vendee/purchaser/ promisee) with free consents entered in to an agreement for sale of the aforesaid property.
5. That as per the agreement the plaintiff/purchaser paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand) cash as an advance towards the part consideration of the sale agreement to the defendant/seller in presence of the witnesses and local gentries and the defendant/seller duly received the same by acknowledging the receipt thereof.
6. That both the parties agreed that the plaintiff/purchaser would pay the Rs.1,35,000/- (one lakh thirty-five thousand) the rest part of the sale consideration amount to the defendant/ seller at the time of the final registration of the suit land and the sale transaction would be completed by 31st May of 2006 and soon after receipt of the balance amount the defendant/seller would execute the necessary document for sale of the land in favour of the plaintiff/purchaser.
7. That on dtd.26.05.2006, the plaintiff along with his son and the witnesses to the agreement approached the defendant, expressed his readiness and willingness to pay the balance amount of the sale consideration, and requested for execution of the necessary sale document on or before 31st May 2006 as per the agreement. The defendant told them that his grand father expired, for which he deferred to do the same three months after. Three months thereafter while on dtd.30.08.2006, the plaintiff along with a local gentry & one of the witnesses to the agreement approached the defendant, expressed his readiness & willingness to pay the balance consideration of the sale agreement, the defendant deferred the date/matter of registration of sale of the suit land to six months thereafter on the ground of the death of his grand mother. While on dtd.01. 03.2007, the plaintiff along with the local gentries and the witnesses to the sale agreement approached the defendant, he again avoided the mater as a last chance on the ground of the sad demise of his cousin brother and asked the plaintiff to come in the 1st week of September 2007. While on dtd.03.09.2007, the plaintiff along with his wife went to the quarter of the defendant and requested for execution of necessary sale document expressing his readiness & willingness to perform his rest part of the contract the defendant straightly refused to execute the sale deed and insulted the couple. Then the plaintiff consulted with his advocate and sent the pleader’s notice to the defendant on dtd.06.09. 2007, which he duly received the same on 18.09.2007 but till today he did not bother to send his reply and continued to refuse and turned a deaf ear to the request of plaintiff.
8. That while the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, with out no fault of him, the defendant evaded the same in one way or another, such as first on the ground of death of his grandfather, secondly grandmother & then cousin brother and in the last refused to execute the registered sale deed the reason best known to him. The aforesaid agreement dtd.28.03.2006 for sale of the suit land is made by the free consent of both of the parties, competent to contract for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object and is not hereby expressly declared to be void. Therefore it is enforceable by law.
9. That in order to deceive/harass the plaintiff, the defendant is negotiating a 3rd party stranger to transfer the suit land and simultaneously arranging to change the nature and character of the suit land by erecting unauthorized construction thereon during the subsistence of the contract by deviating the term and condition of the agreement without annulment of the same.
10. That as aforesaid the plaintiff has got a strong prima facie case. The balance of convenience also lies in his favour. In the interest of justice if a decree for specific performance of contract for sale including ancillary relief of possession etc is not passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant, the plaintiff and his family member will be sustained irreparable injury and substantial loss.
11. That the cause of action for the suit arose within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court on dtd.28.03.2006 when the defendant entered in to the agreement for sale of the suit land with the plaintiff and received the part sale consideration from the plaintiff, and on dtd.26.05.2006, 30.08.2006 & 01. 03.2007, when the plaintiff along with his son, the local gentries and the witnesses to the agreement approached the defendant for execution of the sale deed, expressing his readiness & willingness to pay the balance sale consideration, the defendant avoided for one reason or another and on dtd.03 .09.2007, when the plaintiff with his wife approached the defendant, expressing his readiness & willingness to perform his rest part of the contract, the defendant straightly refused and on dtd.06.09. 2007 when the plaintiff sent pleader’s notice to the defendant and on 18.09.2007 when the defendant received the same and on each subsequent dates thereafter till today when the defendant further continued to refuse and turned a deaf ear to the request of plaintiff for an amicable settlement of the matter out of the court. Hence the plaintiff is compelled to file the suit.
12. That the suit is valued at Rs.1, 85, 000/- (one lakh thirty-five thousand) for the purpose of court fees & jurisdiction and this being a suit for decree of specific performance of contract for sale the relief is valued at the same and advoleram court fees worth Rs.6634. 25paisa, i.e. Rs.6635.00paisa has been paid on the plaint.
13. The plaintiff, therefore prays:-
(i) Let a decree for the specific performance of contract of sale of suit scheduled land may be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant directing the defendant to complete the sale transaction in executing the necessary document for transfer of the suit property (the Registered Sale Deed) in favour of the plaintiff within a short period and to deliver the possession of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the rest part of the sale consideration, failing which a sale deed may be executed and registered and the possession of the suit land may be delivered in favour of the plaintiff through the process of the court.
(ii) Let the defendant / his men / agents claiming through him be restrained/ injucted permanently from changing the nature & character of the suit land or from making any kind of alienation/transfer of the suit land to a 3rd party stranger or any body else during subsistence of the contract.
(iii) Cost of the suit may be awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
(iv) Any other relief/ relieves to which the plaintiff is found entitled may be also granted in his favour.
Documents relied upon
1. The original copy of Agreement for Sale dtd.28th March 2006.
2. The original copy of Money Receipt dtd.28.03.2006
3. The office copy of the Legal Notice dtd.06.09.2007 with postal receipt.
4. The Postal Acknowledgement.
Any other document as would be deemed necessary in view of the written statement shall be filed at the time of hearing.
SCHEDULE – ‘A’
Mouza - Rourkela Town, Unit No. - 40 - Panposh, P. S. - Raghunathpalli, Tahasil - Rourkela, Dist. - Sundargarh, Khata No. 37, Plot Nos. - 324/1278/p & 324/278/p, classification (kisam) - Malsadharan extend of area ( Ac. 0.050res + Ac. 0.050res ) total Ac.0.100res ( Ten decimals) .
V E R I F I C A T I O N
I, Sri Mochia Behera, aged about 62 years S/o. late Dandapani Behera, At - Qr. No. A/117, Sector - 16, P.S. - Sector -15, Rourkela - 3, Dist.- Sundargarh. The plaintiff above named do hereby solemnly affirm & verify that the facts stated above are true to the best of my knowledge & belief & I sign this verification today i.e. the 12th day of November, 2007 being present in court premises.
Rourkela
Dtd.12.11.2007. Verificant.
A F F I D A V I T
I, Sri Mochia Behera, aged about 62 years S/o. late Dandapani Behera, At - Qr. No. - A/117, Sector -16, P.S. - Sector-15, Rourkela - 3, Dist.- Sundargarh do hereby solemnly affirm & states as follows:-
1. That I am the plaintiff in this case.
2. That the facts stated above are true to the best of my knowledge & belief as based upon documents,
Identified by
Advocate Deponent.
Certificate
Certified that due to non-availability of cartridge papers this matter has been prepared in thick white papers to my detection in my office.
Rourkela,
Dtd.12.11.2007. Advocate.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment