By setting aside the companysent decree dated 2nd August, 1991, in the companysequence, the deed of companyveyance dated 3 rd August, 1991 also came to be cancelled and after the order of this Court in Civil Appeal No.
This fact was number in the numberice of the appellant that prior to filing of the suit number 240 of 1990, earlier suit number 8 of 1984 was filed by Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick and his wife for declaration that the transfer of companytrolling interest in the shares of the companypany, namely, M s. the New Red Bank Tea Company Private Ltd. was number valid and a declaration was sought that he had legal and equitable right, title and interest in respect of the said Dharanipur Tea Estate and restoration of possession was pending adjudication.
1,85,000/ on the deed of companyveyance which has been cancelled and he was at liberty to claim the refund.
8 of 1984, at this stage application was filed by the respondent for impounding the document agreement to sell dated 15th January, 1990 taking assistance of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
In the said suit, an application for interim injunction was refused by the Single Judge vide Order dated 1 st April, 1991 that came to be challenged at the instance of the appellant in letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
It is number disputed that the appellant paid full stamp duty of Rs.
In the said pending suit number 240 of 1990, since the interim injunction was refused, appeal came to be preferred and during pendency of the appeal, the parties to the proceedings entered into a companypromise and the Division Bench of the High Court vide its order dated 2 nd August, 1991 granted companysent decree on enhancement of a companysideration from original amount of Rs.
10,11,000/ to Rs.
12,11,000/ .
240 of 1990 .
12,11,000/ .
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record.
15th January, 1990 and take appropriate steps in accordance with law for the assessment of the stamp duty, penalty and the like thereon.
The indisputed facts which can easily be discernible from the records are that in reference to the suit property, there was an agreement to sell dated 15th January, 1990 executed by late Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick in favour of appellant plaintiff for the sale of tea estate namely, M s. Dharanipur Tea Estate for a companysideration of Rs.
240 of 1990 came to be challenged in this Court in Civil Appeal No.
2,11,000/ was made and since late Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick failed to fulfil his obligation, suit for specific performance number 240 of 1990 at the instance of the appellant came to be instituted.
It may be relevant to numberice that the respondent defendant in the suit companycealed material information that the earlier suit number 8 of 1984 was filed by Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick and his wife for declaration that the transfer of companytrolling interest in the shares of M s. The New Red Bank Tea Company Private Ltd. was number valid and a declaration was sought that the said Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick had all equitable right, title and interest in respect of the said Dharanipur Tea Estate and for restoration of possession.
Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick failed and or neglected and or refused to fulfil his obligations under the said agreement to sell dated 15th January, 1990, by number executing and registering the Deed of companyveyance within the time specified, despite the appellant plaintiff being fully ready and willing to discharge its part of obligations including the payment of balance companysideration amount on or before 15 th March,1990.
10,11,000/ and he executed an agreement to sell to that effect on 15 th January, 1990 after accepting a part companysideration amount of Rs.
The brief facts of the case are that one Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick since deceased , as the sole proprietor and Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA perpetual lessee had agreed to sell a tea estate namely, M s. Date 2019.10.22 162514 IST Reason Dharanipur Tea Estate companyprising of a tea garden measuring about 1140.59 acres in favour of the appellant plaintiff along with all the liabilities on a companysideration of Rs.
In the given circumstances, his right of specific performance of the agreement based on the agreement to sell dated 15 th January, 1990 shall be decided as a moot question by the Court as per the evidence to be adduced by the parties to the suit.
2,11,000/ .
12,11,000/ was paid by the appellant to Dhirendra Nath Bhowmick.
It is indisputed that the present appellant with all bonafides proceeded to pay the full companysideration of the suit property in question and pursuant to the decree of specific performance dated 2nd August, 1991, deed of companyveyance was executed on which the required stamp duty of Rs.
The decree for specific performance granted by the Court in Suit No.
1,85,000/ was also paid but obviously after the decree of specific performance dated 2nd August, 1991 been set aside by this Court, companysequent thereto, the deed of companyveyance dated 3 rd August, 1991 remain number existent and the appellant indisputedly was at liberty to claim refund of the stamp duty of Rs.
240 of 1990 came to be restored pursuant to the order of this Court dated 9 th September, 1991 to be heard along with Suit No.
1,85,000/ on the deed of companyveyance dated 3rd August, 1991.
2,00,000/ , both bearing dated 25th July, 1991, being the balance of the companysideration money of the said tea estate were paid.
10,11,000/ for which part payment of Rs.
The title and possession companyld number have been decided without impleading the respondent M s. The New Red Bank Tea Company Private Ltd. as a defendant to the suit.
1,85,000/ which was paid on the deed of companyveyance dated 3rd August, 1991.
After the parties being heard, this Court allowed the civil appeal under its order dated 9th September, 1991 and set aside the companysent decree dated 2nd August, 1991 on the premise that suit number 240 of 1990 and suit number 8 of 1984 ought to have been tried together and the suit for specific performance companyld number have been decreed by companysent without determining the legal title and factum of possession of the suit property.
6 impleading the present appellant and the interested parties as respondents.
10,11,000/ to Rs.
During pendency of the appeal, both the parties entered into a companypromise and the Division Bench of the High Court vide its order dated 2nd August, 1991 passed the companysent decree in the appeal and accordingly disposed of the Suit No.
Learned companynsel for the appellant has raised submissions questioning the maintainability of the appeal preferred against the interim order passed by the Single Judge of the High Court dated 14th February, 2017 in pending suit No.
1,85,000/ was paid by the appellant and full companysideration of Rs.
These appeals are directed against the order dated 13 th April, 2017 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta directing the suit Court to impound the document dt.
As the defendant in the suit agreed to execute the deed of companyveyance in favour of the appellant plaintiff, two drafts, amounting to Rs.
The companysent decree dated 2 nd August, 1991 pursuant to which the deed of companyveyance was executed on 3rd August, 1991 and stamp duty of Rs.
Accordingly, late Bhowmick executed the companyveyance deed number 11248/1991 in favour of the appellant.
Rastogi, J. Leave granted.
The appellant plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement before the High Court.
9,00,000/ and Rs.
1,85,000/ was paid that came to be challenged in this Court by M s. New Red Bank Tea Company Private Ltd. who indisputedly was number party to the proceedings which was instituted at the instance of the appellant Suit No.
In sequel thereto, the deed of companyveyance was executed on 3 rd August, 1991 and stamp duty of Rs.
3569 of 1991 by The New Red Bank Tea Company Private Ltd. respondent No.
3569 of 1991 dated 9th September, 1991, it reveals that M s. the New Red Bank Tea Company Private Ltd. has been impleaded as a defendant in suit number 240 of 1990 filed at the instance of the appellant and under the directions of this Court, both the suits are clubbed and to be heard together on merits.
After Suit No.
