9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 699X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 138 of the NI Act, 1881 against the respondent No.1. In the complaint, the petitioner stated that she, her brother Dulal Das, and Sister Jhulu Rani Das were the joint owner of land measuring 2.09 acres under R.S. Khatian No.113 Mouja-Guarchand, and the accused person herein as the respondent agreed to purchase the land. After negotiation, the price was settled to Rs.5,00,000/-. The petitioner and two others executed 3(three) sale deeds in favour of the respondent herein and those sale deeds were presented before the Sub-Registrar, Sabroom for registration. Due to objection raised by one Pulak Das, Sub-Registrar refused to register the sale deeds and the matter was brought to the notice of the District Registrar for his opinion. For this reason, the sale deeds were pending for registration. Then the respondent No.1 requested the petitioner to return Rs.5,00,000/- on the condition that, he would repay the same amount at the time of registration. Accordingly, the complainant returned the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the accused on 15.11.2011 in cash as against the swearing of one affidavit by the accused. After some time, District Registrar directed the Sub-Registrar, Sabroo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 of NI Act, 1881. 9. Against the Judgment dated 22.11.2017, passed in NI-79/2012, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura under Section 378(2) of Cr.P.C. vide Criminal Appeal No-42/2017. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge, vide Judgment dated 17.02.2020, dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.42/2017, upholding the judgment dated 22.11.2017. 10. Thereafter, the petitioner herein instead of filing the Criminal revision petition challenging the above said impugned judgment, preferred criminal appeal with special leave petition in time before the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura which was registered and numbered as Crl. L.P No.01/2020 in Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2020. 11. Thereafter, the Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 07.10.2020, passed in Crl.LP. No.01 of 2020 in terms of submission of the learned counsel of the petitioner allowed to withdraw the said appeal with the liberty given to the petitioner to file an appropriate petition. 12. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Judgment dated 17.02.2020, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, in case No Criminal Appeal No.42/2017, the petitioner pref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rani Das (Majumder), W/O Shri Manik Lal Majumder of Ananya Complex, Kunjaban Colony, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. East Agartala by profession house wife, aged 53 years on oath say as follow:- 1. That myself and my brother Dulal Das and my sister Jhilu Rani Das jointly being owners in profession of land under Mouja Guarchand made an approach to the accused person to sell the land under R.S. Khatian No. 113, area 2.09 acres at a settled price of 5,00,000/- and accused person had agreed to purchase the said land at the settled price of Rs. 5,00,000/- and accordingly accused person paid the entire consideration money of Rs. 5,00,000/- to us in cash and accordingly we i.e. myself and my brother and sister jointly being the truefull owners of the said land had executed 3 nos. of sale deeds in favour of accused person and presented those sale deeds before the Sub-Registrar, Sabroom for its registration. One Shri Pulak Das raised objection to register of those sale deeds and accordingly Sub-Registrar sent those sale deeds before the District Registrar for his opinion in the matter of registration. These are true to my knowledge. 2. That due to objection raised by Pulak Das those sale deeds we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in deeds to the accused person. Actually in that affidavit I nowhere stated that I or my brother or sister will give possession again to the accused person prior to encashment of cheque. These are true to my knowledge. 5. That a civil suit bearing no. T.S. 25/2011 is pending in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) in between Shri Pulak Das as plaintiff and accused person as defendants. Accused person in that civil suit by filing W.S. stated that the purchased land in question by those sale deeds at the time of execution of those deeds and got possession, so the question of handling over again possession of those land in question as mentioned in those sale deeds does not arise. These are true to my knowledge. 6. That the cause of action of the present case has arisen on and from 11.06.2012 i.e. the date of receipt of response of the accused person through his counsel Pinky Saha (Banik) on receipt of demand notice issued by me on 15.05.2012. These are true to my knowledge. 7. That I have submitted the following documents:- I. Affidavit of Sri Prabir kr, Majumder before Notary, Agartala dated 15.11.2011. II. Cheque no. 116007 dated 29.02.2012 for Rs. 4,00,000/- is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eque was not dishonoured after proper presentation. It is not a fact that the cheque was not encashed because the accuse did not get possession of the land. It is not a fact that I am depositing falsely." 17. Here it is also pertinent to refer to the Ext-A, declaration on oath by way of affidavit by Smt. Tulu Rani Das(Majumder), the petitioner-complainant herein which is reproduced herein-under:- " That we the deponents jointly sold 2.09 acres of land of R.S. Khatian No.113, Hal Plot No.2637, 2682 and 2679 of Mouja-Goachand of Sri Prabir Kumar Majumder, S/o Late Haripada Majumder of Math Chowmuhani, Agartala and accordingly 3 Nos of sale deed was written and these sale deeds were executed by us in favour of said-Prabir Kumar Majumder and presented those deeds before the Sub-Registrar, Sabroom on 01.11.2011 for the purpose of Registration, but due to objection raise by one-Pulak Das of Harina, those sale deeds were not registered on that day and sent those deeds to the District Registrar, South Tripura for his opinion. These are true to my knowledge. 2. That due to non-registration and for urgent requirement of money as per approached by said Prabir Kumar Majumder, I Smt. Tul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21. On perusal of the relevant documents and evidence on record, it is evident that the complainant asserted that after the registration of the Sale Deeds she and her co-sharers handed over physical possession of the land to the accused person herein. In her examination in chief on affidavit, the complainant herein stated that on the date of registration of those deeds itself they handed over such possession to the accused person herein, by shifting their stand as made in the complaint petition. In the cross-examination, the complainant admitted that the accused person never took any loan from her. She again volunteered during such cross-examination that she deposited the cheque only after handing over possession of the land to the accused so far. Even as on date if possession is delivered, would immediately pay the cheque amount. Further prayed to dismiss the Crl. Rev. Petition of concurrent findings. 22. Though the emphasis was given on the recital of those three sale deeds (Exbt.B1, Exbt.C/1 and Exbt.D/1) to the effect that from the date of execution of the deeds, the right, title, interest, and possession of the sold-out lands were transferred to the accused-person but same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded over to him by the complainant. Such novation is permissible under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. But the complainant has suppressed the said facts and brought a new story through her complaint petition as indicated above. Unless the complainant could show that possession was duly handed over after registration of those sale deeds and thereafter the cheque was deposited by her, she cannot claim any legally enforceable debt in her favour to be discharged by the accused. 24. Finally during the course of the argument, Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the complainant-petitioner submitted that out of Rs.5,00,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- has already been received by the owner and the remaining Rs.4,00,000/- is yet to be received. According to the complainant, possession is already delivered and if the same is denied, they have no objection to return Rs.1,00,000/-and take back the possession of the property. The accused person should be restrained from claiming the property if the appropriate suit is initiated for cancellation of the sale deeds and so on. 25. During the course of the argument, Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the accused person su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
