Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. 1. These Second Appeals under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 are against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.1997 of the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Appeal No. 15/96.

2. On 13.5.1977 M/s Mantala Tea Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed Title Suit No.49/77 in the Court of the learned Sadar Munsiff, Agartala. The case of the plaintiff in the said suit was that the plaintiff was the owner of Mantala Tea Estate and was carrying on the business of cultivation, manufacture and sale of black tea. The plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs. 3.00 lakhs from the Assam Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Defendant No. 1) and mortgaged its tea estate and factory described in the Schedule to the plaint (hereinafter referred to as suit property) as security for the loan under mortgage bond on 7th April, 1969. The mortgage bond stipulated inter alia that the plaintiff will be at liberty to mortgage and hyopthecate the suit property in favour of the United Bank of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as Defendant No. 6) and the Defendant Nos. 1 and 6 would have Paripassu charge over the suit property. The plaintiff took loan from the Defendant No. 6 against hypothecation of seasonal tea during the years 1969 to 1976. In 1976, the Defendant No. 1 put pressure on the plaintiff to clear the outstanding mortgage debt and without giving time to the plaintiff to pay up the arrear or mortgage debt out of its surplus income during the year 1976 invited tenders for sale of the suit property. The plaintiff made representation to the Defendant No. 1 for withdrawal of the said notice for sale, but the Defendant No. 1 for withdrawal of the said notice for sale, but the Defendant No. 1 did not reply, the plaintiff then received a letter dated 24.3.1977 from the Defendant No. 1 Intimating sale of the suit property to Maheshpur Tea and Industries (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant No. 2) by the registered sale deed dated 24.3.1977. The plaintiff alleged that the sale of the suit property was made in collusion amongst Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 6 and the sale was unjust, arbitrary, malicious and fraudulent. The plaintiff prayed for a declaration that the registered sale deed dated 24.3.1977 executed by the Defendant No. 1 in favour of the Defendant No. 2 was Illegal, void, ineffective and not binding against the plaintiff and for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and Defendant Nos. 3, 4 and 5 (Officers of the Defendant No. 2 Company) and their servants or agents from entering the suit property and from disturbing the plaintiffs possession over the suit property.