GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 7 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 6:

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.04.2022, the appellants,M/S Heritage Home Reality Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Shri. Pradeep Gogoi, Managing Director of M/S Heritage Home Reality Developers have preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M),Guwahati.

2. The principal respondents, Mrs. CherrieKhaund Bindra and Mrs. Barbie Khaund Bora have instituted the Title Suit No. 436/2011 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge No. 1 seeking a decree of realization of Rs. 21 lacs, compensation of Rs. 3 lacs, and permanent injunction etc. on the basis of the deed of agreement dated 24.02.2009.

3. The plaintiffs are sisters and at present the plaintiff No. 1 is a resident of Pune whereas the plaintiff No. 2 is a resident of Delhi.The owner and managing director of defendant No. 1 is the defendant No. 2.

4. The genesis of the case is that, being absolute owners of a parcel of land admeasuring 1 Bigha appertaining to DAG number 79 covered by patta No. 3 at revenue village, Dwarandha under Beltola Mouza in the district of Kamrup,the plaintiffs executed an agreement on 12.06.2008 prior to the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the same subject matter. However, owing to certain inconveniences regarding the mode of payment, both the plaintiffs and the defendants cancelled the agreement dated 12.06.2008 on mutual consent and entered into a fresh agreement dated 24.02.2009. The subject matter is the aforementioned land which is described in the schedule of the plaint. It was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendants that the defendants would construct three (3) residential buildings on the same plot of land after laying down certain terms and conditions.

5. Now in the appeal, the appellants are the defendants No. 1 and No. 2 respectively and will be referred to as defendants whereas the plaintiffs are arrayed as respondent No. 1 and 2 and will be referred to as plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 respectively.

6. As per the agreement dated 24.02.2009, the defendants were supposed to pay Rs. 72 lacs to the plaintiffs under the following conditions:- That under the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 24.02.09 the defendants were supposed to pay to the plaintiffs an amount of Rs. 72,00,000/- (Rupees seventy two lacs) in the manner as herein below verbatim.

"(a) The defendants were supposed to pay an amount of Rs. (Rupees six lakhs) on the month of April, 2009 to the plaintiffs.

(b) The defendants were supposed to pay an amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees twelve lakhs) to the plaintiffs in equal instalments on the month of July, 2009, October, 2009 and January, 2010 and lastly on April, 2010.

(c) The remaining balance of Rs. 14,00,000/- (Rupees fourteen lakhs) was supposed to be payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs on the month of July, 2010.

(d) The defendants were supposed to pay the aforesaid instalments as per post dated cheques to the plaintiffs. As per the agreement dated 24.02.09 and more particularly the Deed No. 2451 of 2009. It is laid down that if the defendants fail to pay or default in paying the aforesaid amounts within the specific time mentioned therein, then the defendants were liable to pay an interest at the rate of 18% per annum. ......"

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=zDLovBVSUw02H8XukOjXfHBDM6t%2BEanmw4abGMehrXJSN%2FUzLubOVhFPTVeWsjWo&caseno=RFA/26/2022&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010127842022&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.