Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The said suit was contested by the defendant no.1 Smt. Dipsikha Chakraborty (the present appellant no.1) by filing a written statement, thereby denying the material allegations made in the plaint.

3. Upon hearing both sides, the Trial Judge dismissed the said suit on contest without costs. Being thus aggrieved, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal bearing Title appeal no.62 of 2005, which was ultimately allowed on contest by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1 at Barasat, thereby reversing the decision of the Trial Judge and decreeing the suit in part, declaring an agreement of assignment (Exhibit 1) and an agreement for tenancy (Exhibit 2), both dated August 13, 1992, as void documents and directing the defendants to vacate the suit property in favour of the appellant no.1 within three months.

28. It is found from the records that six documents were executed on August 13, 1992 -an agreement for assignment, a loan agreement, an agreement for tenancy, an irrevocable General Power of Attorney, a Will and an Affidavit-cum-Declaration. A conspicuous feature of the case is that, the Appellate Court recorded the admission of the plaintiff no. 1 that the plaintiff no.1 intended to obtain permission from the beginning for the transfer of the suit property in favour of the defendants, but could not do so in view of the subsequent Notification of the year 1993.

29. Although the respondents have sought to bypass the documents-in-

question by creating a cloud relating to the execution thereof, it was specifically observed by the Appellate Court itself that the appellant no.1 stood firm in his claim that he wanted to transfer the suit property to the respondent no.1 although such transfer was not permitted in law.

30. It is seen from the findings of both the courts below that a rent receipt was produced in evidence, along with the tenancy agreement itself, dated August 13, 1993 to substantiate at least a case of tenancy in favour of the defendants. There cannot be any apparent conflict between executing an agreement of assignment simultaneously with an agreement of tenancy. Whereas the agreement, coupled with the rent receipt, in the absence of rebuttal by the respondents, substantiates the case of a tenancy being created in favour of the defendant, simultaneously the agreement of assignment was also entered into by the parties.