Manju Sengupta v. Sukrit Bhowmik And ANR

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFTRIPURA AGARTALA R.S.A.No.44of2012 Smt.ManjuSengupta,
 

 

        


    

Appellant -Versus- 1.
SriSukritBhowmik,       

 


          !   "   #$$%%&  ' "   (  2. Dr.BiswanathMajumder,    )  *   +,   - 

"   (  ............Respondents BEFORE THEHON'BLEMR.JUSTICES.TALAPATRA .   :*/0

"+  *" "+  .    :*  "+      :19.03.2015 ,+-1 ,  (    : YES NO √ JUDGMENT&ORDER(ORAL) ) * /0

  2- *  "         
  *           

  

 [2]           &%%              %#%34%&4 +   * - " 0 %&  4%&& 2-  "    1 (    
  +   %3%54%&&+ * - 0%&4%%$ 2- +11+  (  [3]

-     4&&&4%&&
      
  2   6    
 + 2  7 (i) Whether judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court (the court of the Additional District Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura) in Money Appeal No.01 of 2011 suffersfromperversity? (ii)Anyothersubstantialquestionoflawmay be formulated at the time of hearing if necessary,onhearinglearnedcounselofboth side. [4]   
   6 - 2  2   6   04          2  6  8 +      2   6   *


+ 2  
    2    -2  6  
     2-          *

     -           
 2-        
   2  6   
      2 






 [5]     2     9  :


;  0&     !&%%%%%:!  ;
 

 
   9 :


;     
    9  :


; 6           2              -     2     2   9  :


;   6  !4%%%%%<=:!
 ;2  

!&%%%%%<=8 
   
   -
+ 
      2     
2  -       - 8        
     
    > - 8    2-       
 + 

     -8     
   ?   @  "   &5%A&$$5 +!&%%%%%<=       0&     0&             2 
  '

      *   8  

  0+2 4%%4   0&      2   
 -  8 - -   "            0&  -     !&%%%%%<=                        -   








            0& > %$%A4%%3    0&     !&%%%%<=           2      

      %&%A4%%$      

 
-  -   

 45%$4%%5    
    +     -  -  

     "    0&                "        45%54%%#%&%A4%%$  45%$4%%5
     -
8     
     2-          )
+   0&   
  + 2  = >  [6] *

   

  2   +  0&                 2 -       2   
         

   *           2           
                 2  >=6    
    







       
  -  
    "      +   2   


       2
  0& 


  -
 2     
 
 2     
 45%54%%#%&%A4%%$  -   45%$4%%5 *

2      2 2- 2-+     !&%%%%%<=    0& 0& 2  2-   -       "      
    =2   2+     -   2-         -   2- *

            2+   7 In the present case, the respondent has not put forward the details of the alleged oral agreementandhasnotputforwardtheexact date, time, place and even she did not disclose the name of the third person in the plaint as well as in her examinationFinFchief in whose presence the alleged agreement took place. It is settled principal that very obviouspurposethenameofpersonwasnot mentioned in her plaint as well as in her examinationFinFchief so that tutored/stock witness may be procured subsequently to give evidence on behalf of such party like parrotfashion.Butitishappenedinthiscase.

 As per para 5 of examinationFinFchief, the respondent (plaintiff), respondent came to Agartala with her son and another and gave Rs.1 Lac in cash to the mother of the appellant No.1 in presence of some persons. No where the name of another person was disclosed who accompanied the respondent and her son at the relevant time of alleged transaction.






 the name of some persons who remained present at the time of transaction. The respondent examined PW.3 who represents the another person. Here, as per plaint and depositionofPW.1,theexistenceofPW.3as another person at the time of alleged transaction is purely manufactured afterthought.PW.3 isastranger and hasgot nolegtostanduponasanotherperson.Since his specific name was not disclosed by PW.1 inherplaintaswellasinherexaminationFinF chief, undoubtedly, the statement of such strangerwitnesscarriesnoimportance. *

  

       (=A    
       -  2 
            -     
     
 2 -              -       +  .          
 2    +          7 The matter was further discussed with the mother of the defendant No.1 and it was agreed between the plaintiff and the mother ofthedefendantNo.1thattheplaintiffwould go to the house of the defendant No.1 at Agartala and give Rs.1,00,000/F and five bhories of gold ornaments to the defendant No.1.

 Accordingly, the plaintiff with her son and another person came to Agartala on 18.03.1998andgaveRs.1,00,000/Fincashto themotherofthedefendantNo.1inpresence ofsomepersonsandthemoneywasreceived by the mother of the defendant No.1 who handed over the same to her son, defendant No.1 forcountingandherson aftercounting found the amount to be Rs.1,00,000/F and received the same. The mother of the defendant No.1 also received 5 bhories of gold ornaments in an ornament box and handed it over to her son who received both the money and the gold ornaments. The defendant No.






 ornaments as and when the plaintiff would demand. [7]    7 The defendant No.2 told that in case the defendant No.1 fails to pay the money he would pay the money and if the defendant No.1 did not return the gold ornaments he wouldpaythevalueofthegoldornamentsto the plaintiff. The defendants made this promise in presence of several persons includingtheplaintiff. [8] *                 -2       +  2-   +         )          - [9]               
   +   +         - +   - 
  2-       

  2  -    
2  +2-     (= & , 4 '+      -  (=A    + -
  2 
        +       
     
+ 
          0&   +2- 8    2 2  2- 0&2- 04     -2- 0&
  


  - (=4 
- -






 +   2                 
      2
 
2 - >    2  +2-     =         
    - "

-   -          2-  
     2- -   +2 2  +  -          
  >     -2- "  >       6 - 22           -        

         +       

  2       -      6  " 6   2-           


  -  
B !   JUDGE