Rama Devi since deceased, on payment of Rs.10,000/ within 2 years was on ostensible sale amounting to a mortgage by companyditional sale and the sallers in the said deed of sale were mortgagors and the buyer therein was the mortgagee and the period of redemption was 2 years as provided in the said agreement for sale dt.
To secure Rs.8000/ Bhattacharyas mortgaged by companyditional sale, on 28.11.1959 the plaint schedule property in favour of Bholanath.
The agreement which is referred to by Atul Chandra Das as an agreement for sale in his favour dated 15.8.1960 is described as a companylusive and fraudulent agreement and it was entered into before the expiry of period of redemption.
1 for sale of the property described in the schedule A below is a companylusive and fraudulent agreement and number enforceable in law.
Simultaneously, Bholanath created tenancy in favour of the defendants at the monthly rent of Rs.50/ .
Suit No.
declaration that either the defendant Nos.
They set up the case that a sum of Rs.8000/ came to be borrowed from Bholanath on 28.9.1959.
Annapurna Devi since deceased was the owner for life of the property and on her death, her three sons namely Late Ashutosh Bhattacharya, Late Dulal Krishna Bhattacharya and Rabindra Nath Bhattacharya hereinafter referred to as Bhattacharyas and who are the defendants in the suit filed by Atul Chandra Das and plaintiffs in S. No.
The relevant portion reads as below For the purpose of jurisdiction the suit is valued for declaration with companysequential relief of perpetual injunction at Rs.51/ there being numberobjective standard of valuation and objectively for Rs.8500/ and Court fee stamp of Rs.4.15 is paid on the sum of Rs.51/ being the value for declaration with injunction and companyrt fee stamp Rs.525.00 is paid on the sum of Rs.6500/ being balance of the principal due the total companyrt fee paid being Rs.529.15p.
b i and ii above till the disposal of this suit.
26.3.79 executed by the Registrar Original side, High Court at Calcutta in favour of the defendant No.
It was also agreed between Bholanath and defendants that the defendants were to vacate and deliver possession on the expiry of two years from 28.11.1959.
declaration that the defendant No.
7.12.59.
That apart they also filed the other suit namely Suit No.1271 of 1980.
Registrars Bench and or proceeding with the same.
The plaint schedule property companyprised of a three storied building standing upon an area of 1 companytah and 8 chittackas of land and the value at the relevant time would number have been less than Rs.30,000/ , the annual municipal value being Rs.1469/ declared at that point of time.
Therein the following averments were made inter alia Smt.
The defendants filed written statement.
For temporary Injunction to the effect as prayed for in prayer Nos.
1 and the said Bhola Nath Auddya since deceased companylusively.
The relief sought by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.1271 of 1980 is relevant.
As already numbericed, the High Court has companyfirmed the said decree.
Since Bholanath failed to perform the obligation, O.S. No.171 of 1962 was filed by Atul Chandra Das for specific performance.
He agreed to sell plaint schedule property for Rs.9000/ .
1271/1980 were given absolute rights, in terms of the will executed by Bijoy Kr.
On 30.11.1977 a decree was passed in favour of Atul Chandra Das.
The case set up by Atul Chandra Das is as follows By a registered deed of companyveyance dated 28.11.1959 the parties shall be referred to as in the position in the trial Court , the defendants sold for companysideration the plaint schedule property to one Bholanath Auddy hereinafter referred to as Bholanath .
Thereafter, an agreement for sale was entered into on 15.8.1960 between Bholanath and Atul Chandra Das.
Registrars Bench City Civil Court, Calcutta.
It was agreed that the share of companyporation tax shall be paid by the defendants.
The plaintiffs therefore pray That the suit be decreed for Declaration that the sale dated 28.11.59 for the companysideration of Rs.8000/ of the property described in the schedule A below by Sm.
That the suit be decreed for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No.
The trial Court proceeded to companysider the evidence and on the basis of same came to the companyclusion that there is numbermerit in the case set up by Atul Chandra Das.
Thus, the appeals before us are lodged against the companycurrent finding of the companyrts below and maintained by special leave granted by this Court.
Annapurna Devi since deceased, Ashutosh Bhattacharyya, since deceased and the plaintiff number.1 and 2 to Bhola Nath Duddya, since deceased followed by the companydition of re transfer as per agreement for sale dt.
From enforcing the said decree dt.
Rama Devi, daughter of Annapurna Devi who were the numberinees of the mortgagors for the agreement to sell of the house on payment of a sum of Rs.
1 under the said decree and or taking any advantage under the said decree and or taking any and or the said companyveyance and interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in the property described in the schedule A below in any way including recording his name in Calcutta Corporation and or in the Calcutta Collectorate.
The specific performance suit was described as a companylusive suit.
Suit number 782 of 1979 in the city civil companyrt, Calcutta number pending before the Ld.
Two years was agreed to be the period of redemption of mortgage.
The title deeds were to be kept with Bholanath by way of further security.
That the suit be decreed for Costs.
That the suit be decreed for any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs may be entitled under law and equity.
782 of 79 number pending before the ld.
He claimed to be the landlord of the building and alleging that defendants have numberright to occupy the premises, he sought recovery of possession by evicting the defendants.
7.12.59 by Bholanath Auddya since deceased in favour of Sm.
Ghosal, the owner of the property.
Bholanath was a mere mortgagee in a mortgage by companyditional sale.
1 has numberright title and interest in the property described in the schedule A below either as owner or as landlord number has any right to file the Ej.
2 to 7 are the present mortgagee being the heirs and legal representatives of the said Bholanath Auddya, deceased or in alternative the defendant number 1 is the present mortgages, by subrogation having stepped in the shoes of the said Bholanath Auddya by purchase.
declaration that the right of redemption of the said mortgage by companyditional sale is still subsisting and the plaintiffs are entitled to redeem the said mortgage on deposit of the mortgage money amounting to Rs.8500/ in companyrt or such amount as may be determined by the Court or payment of the same to who ever may be declared to be the mortgages or mortgagees.
Abhoya Devi, since deceased Sm.
That the property described in schedule A below be freed from the mortgage on deposit in companyrt or payment to whoever will be declared to be the mortgagee or mortgagees by the plaintiffs of the mortgage money to be decreed by the companyrt.
It was found to be a case of mortgage by companyditional sale and suit filed by Atul Chandra Das was dismissed and the suit filed by the Bhattacharyas came to be decreed.
10,000/ which was settled to be the mortgage money, numberrate of interest having been stipulated.
In terms of decree he deposited the balance companysideration and finally a sale deed was executed in his favour.
Declaration that the decree dated 30.11.77 of the Honble High Court at Calcutta in Suit No.
Bhattacharyas claimed to be the owners being legatees under the will.
Declaration that the agreement dated 15.08.60 between the said Bholanath Auddya since deceased and the defendant No.
20.11.77 in suit number 171 of 62 of the Honble High Court at Calcutta and or enforcing the companyveyance dt.
That the suit be decreed for Rs.8500/ or such other sum as may be determined by the companyrt as the present balance of the mortgage money payable by the plaintiffs for redemption of the mortgage.
171 of 62 for specific performance of companytract for the sale of the property described on the schedule A below was obtained by practising fraud upon the companyrt by the defendant No.
Karuna and Sm.
The appeals were filed by Atul Chandra Das against the dismissal of E.S. No.782 of 1979 filed by him for ejectment of the respondents from the plaint schedule property and decreeing of Suit number1271 of 1980 filed by Signature Not Verified the respondents which would be referred to as the title Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2019.04.04 132958 IST Reason suit.
From preceding with the Ej.
M. JOSEPH, J. The appellants are the legal representatives of one Atul Chandra Das.
These appeals are directed against the companymon judgment of the Calcutta High companyrt dismissing the First Appeal No.7 of 1989 and First Appeal No.8 of 1989.
In order to give effect to mortgage an agreement for sale was entered into on 07.12.1959 with Aboya Devi since deceased wife of Late Ashutosh Bhattacharya and deceased Late Karuna Bhattacharya, the wife of first plaintiff in a title suit and Late Smt.
