A. Hazarika, J.
1. Both the appeals were heard together in view of the fact that, both the appeals were preferred by the Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and 5 to 26 against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2003 passed in Title Suit No. 1/91 by the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Kamrup at Guwahati and they are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. In R.F.A. No. 16/2004, the Defendant Nos. 5 to 26 who were impleaded vide order dated 25.6.91 in Title Suit No. 1 of 1991 before the learned Assistant District Judge, No. 1, Guwahati, are the appellants in the instant Regular First Appeal being Regular First Appeal No. 16 of 2004 on the file of this Court. The said suit was filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein, seeking a decree that they are entitled to the release of 3K 8 Lechas of land described in schedule 'B' from acquisition in terms of agreement dated 19.1.85 and for a decree for mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to release the said land from acquisition and to deliver possession of the said land to the Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (the plaintiffs) and for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from constructing any building and/or structure on the 'B' schedule land and/or restrained them from disturbing the plaintiffs' (Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 herein) possession over 'B' schedule land.
3. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings adduced by the parties and the material evidence on record, more particularly, Exhibit 19 (the agreement dated 19.1.85 executed between the Governor of Assam and the Gauhati Municipal Corporation, Guwahati, of one part and the Respondents herein on the other part) decreed the suit and hence the present Regular First Appeal has been filed.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial court. Pleadings set out by the parties in the suit are extracted elaborately in the judgment under chlenge and it would be sufficient for decision of this appeal if a gist of the plaint and the written statements filed by the parties are set out.
5. The plaint schedule lands belonged to Late Nadir Shah, the predecessor-in-in-terest of plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2 and on the death of Late Nadir Shah, his entire share was devolved on his widow Mustt. Suraiya Begum, who has been arrayed as plaintiff No. 3 in the suit and the plaintiff No. 1 amd plaintiff No. 2 are the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff No. 3. Late Nadir Shah had constructed several houses on the said land and let out to different tenants and he had himself was running a grocery shop and had constructed one R.C.C. building on an area of about 1 Katha of the said land. Considering the area in question and the shops standing on the land, the then the Gauhati Municipal Corporation, approached the Deputy Commissioner, Guwahati, Kamrup to acquire the land of Late Nadir Shah in order to open a market at Paltan Bazar and the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 18.4.1958, directed to start acquisition proceedings of the land of the plaintiffs being K.P. Patta No. 627/797 (old) under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and to submit draft notification to the Local Self Government Department for onward transmission to the Revenue Secretary, Shillong for publication in the Assam Gazette. The Deputy Commissioner, Guwahati, however, vacated the order of acquisition under the Act, 1894 on 28.8.58 and ordered for requisition of the suit land under the Assam Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948 and issued the notice dated 4.9.58 to Late Nadir Shah and others in regard to requisition of the land described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint measuring 1B 2K 12 Lechas covered by Dag No. 3216 and 3217 of K.P. Patta No. 627/797 (old) under Sectionj 3(1) of the said Act 1948 and to vacate the land in question. The plaintiffs, however, preferred an appeal before the State Government against the aforesaid order of requisition which ended in dismissal. The said dismissal order was taken on the file of the High Court being Civil Rule No. 152 of 1958 invoking power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which was also culminating dismissal on 23.2.1959. The said order of dismissal was challenged before the Apex Court being C.A. No. 77 of 1963. The Apex Court had affirmed the order of the High Court on 22.4,65. In the meantime the Collector, Kamrup vide letter dated 30.8.60 called on the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs (Nadir Shah) to receive the requisition compensation of Rs. 12,000/- but the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs demanded the determination of the requisition compensation according to the provisions of law or to refer the matter to the court as provided under the Act, 1948. The Deputy Commissioner, Guwahati, however, made an on account payments of Rs. 18,000/- on 21.4.64, Rs. 12000/- on 2.6.64 and Rs. 50,000/- on 14.5.69, leaving a huge amount as arrear compensation. The said arrear requisition amount was not, in fact, deposited and thereby deprived of both possession and compensation. In the meantime, the Government of Assam acquired the land vide notification dated 21.5.80 under Section 6(1) of the Assam Land (Requisition & Acquisition) Act, 1964 without giving any chance of filing objection against such process of acquisition. Against the said acquisition order, the plaintiffs including plaintiff No. 1 and 2 had moved the High Court being Civil Rule No. 908 of 1983. During the pendency of the said Civil Rule, the Government of Assam, through its Secretary, Municipal Administration Department issued a letter on 22.12.1984 to the plaintiffs including the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, expressing desire to amicably settle the matter and accordingly an agreement was executed on 19.1.1985 between the Governor of Assam, the Gauhati Municipal Corporation of the one part and the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and the plaintiff No. 1 and 2 on the other part, which was registered on 19.1.85. In the said agreement, it was stipulated that the plaintiffs would execute a deed of gift of land, measuring 3 Kathas 12 Lechas under Dag No. 3216 (old) and 12 Lechas of land under Dag No. 3217 (old) of K.P. Patta No. 627/797 (old) of Sahar, Guwahati in favour of the Government of Assam and the Gauhati Municipal Corporation and in lieu thereof, the Government of Assam would release 3 Kathas 8 Lechas of land covered by Dag No. 3217 in favour of the plaintiffs from requisition and the vacant possession of the said land along with the building would be delivered to them on or before 31.3.85. It was further agreed by the parties that the plaintiffs would withdraw the Civil Rule No. 908 of 1983 immediately after the khas and vacant possession is delivered to them and thereafter, the deed of gift would be executed in favour of Government of Assam and the Gauhati Municipal Corporation for public purposes. However, the agreement executed on 19.1.85 could not be implemented and the resultant effect was that the Civil Rule was also could not be withdrawn. The said Civil Rule came up for hearing and the Government Advocate, representing the State, had informed on 25.5.90 to the court of its inability to implement the deed executed on 19.1.85 and therefore, the court directed the plaintiffs to seek the remedy in a Civil Court for specific performance of the said agreement and hence, the suit seeking decree as aforesaid.
6. R.F.A. No. 40/2004 has been preferred by the Gauhati Municipal Corporation and the Commissioner, Gauhati Municipal Corporation, who were arrayed as party defendant Nos. 3 and 4. The defendant Nos. 3 and 4 contested the suit by filing written statement, contending interalia that, the agreement dated 19.1.85, executed between the parties, cannot be enforced under the guise of Specific Performance of agreement, which is hopelessly time barred under law, more so, when the land in question was not derequisitioned by the Government after the same was acquired vide notification dated 7.2.1980 which had already been vested with the Gauhati Municipal Corporation, published in Assam Gazette dated 21.5.80 and therefore contended that, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the suit seeking delivery of possession as executed by aforesaid agreement and cannot claim ownership of land. They had further contended that the relief claimed in the suit being viz, (a) for release of the said land from acquisition; (b) to deliver possession of schedule land to the plaintiffs and (c) decree of permanent injunction and the suit being valued at Rs. 16.00 Lakhs and the plaintiffs having failed to pay ad-valorem court fee according to the value of the suit under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fee Act, the suit must fail on this ground alone.
7. They have further contended that the acquisition proceeding over the suit land having been upheld both by the High Court and the Apex Court, the suit land have already been vested on the Government and therefore, the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the land in question, without the land being derequisitioned by the Government and the revenue records cannot give them the title over the said land, moreover, when the compensation for requisition has already been cleared up by contesting defendants. They have denied that they were aware of any negotiation as alleged, but specific plea has been raised that, the land in question having not been derequisitioned, the alleged negotiation and the final agreement cannot bind them to be acted upon, more so, when the gift deed was not executed and delivery of possession was not handed over. In the written statement, it has further been agitated that there was no prayer for delivery of Khas possession though there was some terms of vacant possession of the land which is impossible to implement because of subsequent development and hence prayed for dismissal of suit.
8. The defendants No. 5 to 26 have filed their written statements contesting the suit contending interalia the following specific averments in regard to maintainability of the suit apart from other grounds viz;
a) The suit having been valued at Rs. 16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs) for declaration and court fee Rs. 100/- (Rupees One hundred) only paid for permanent injunction praying--
i) For release of the said land from acquisition;
ii) To deliver possession of 'B' schedule land and
iii) Decree for permanent injunction and the consequential relief having been prayed without paying the advalorem court fee, which is required to be paid under Section 7(iv)(c) of the Court Fee Act, 1870, the suit cannot be proceeded with;
b) The facts as disclosed in the plaint . would show that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement (which is not a contract) dated 19.1.85 and the date fixed for specific performance of the agreement being 31.3.85 and the suit having been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the suit is not maintainable being barred by limitation;
c) The alleged agreement dated 19.1.85 being made without consideration in violation of law of contract and the gift alleged to be made by the plaintiffs who are not the owners of the land in question and the consideration of gift being unlawful relating to future prosperity which is opposed to the Transfer of Property Act and the alleged agreement being not a contract is not legally enforceable and as such no case is made out for specific performance of agreement and the suit on this threshold is liable to be dismissed;
The defendants No. 5 to 26 have further contended that the plaintiffs are not the owner of the suit land from the year 1958, when the said suit land was requisitioned and thereafter the said disputed land was acquired by the Government by Gazette notification dated 7.2.80 as published on 21.5.80 and hence the plaintiff ceased to be the owner and as such the suit is not maintainable, more so, when the Governor of Assam in exercise of power under Section 6(1) of the Assam (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 1964 had acquired the lands in question for the purposes of construction of modern Municipal Market for public purposes and the Gauhati Municipal Corporation became the owner of the land by paying Rs. 4,57,567.73 (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Sixty Seven and Seventy Three Paise) as it would reveal from the affidavit-in-opposition filed in Civil Rule No. 908/83. They have pleaded that the agreement dated 19.1.85 entered between the parties agreed that the land measuring 3 Kathas 8 Lechas which was already acquired by the Government of Assam for the market to be handed over to the plaintiffs out of the total acquired land of 7 Kathas 12 Lechas is without jurisdiction, being void ab initio, inoperative and cannot be acted upon for any purpose. Moreover, the acquisition proceeding having been upheld by the Apex Court, the agreement dated 19.1.85 entered into by the parties in clear disregard of public interest, as well as, interest of the answering defendants and the agreement being not a contract under Section 10 read with Section 2(d) of Indian Contract Act, 1872, no suit lies for specific performance of the agreement and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
9. Upon the pleadings of the parties the trial court has framed the following issues;
I) Whether there is cause of action for suit?
II) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?
III) Whether the suit is properly valued and proper court fee has been paid?
IV) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?
V) Whether the agreement in question is a contract and is enforceable one?
VI) Whether the plaintiff fails to disclose cause of action and is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code?
VII) Whether the suit land was requisitioned and acquired by the Government and possession thereof was taken over in pursuance of such acquisition and requisition from the plaintiffs, if so, whether compensation thereof was paid?
VIII) Whether the suit land is liable to be released in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for by them?
IX) To what relief or reliefs, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled?
10. During the trial, the plaintiffs have examined one witness and exhibited several documents and the most vital document where the cause of action arose for the suit is Ext. 19 and the defendants have examined four witnesses in support of their case. The learned trial court after exhaustive deliberations recorded the following findings on the various issues.
The trial court first took up issue No. 4 which relates to the question of limitation and found that there was an agreement vide Ext-19, executed between the Government of Assam and the Gauhati Municipal Corporation of one part and the plaintiffs on the other part, wherein it was stipulated that the 1st party of the agreement would request the Deputy Commissioner to derequisition the area of 3 kathas 8 Lechas of land described in schedule 'B' and to deliver and handover Khas and vacant possession of the said land alongwith building to the 2nd party on or before 31.3.85. There was no specific date for performance of the agreement. The said performance of agreement could not be implemented, was disclosed by the defendants No. 3 and 4 on 8.9.89 and the defendants No. 1 and 2 on 25.5.90 and it would definitely come in aid of Section 54 of the Limitation Act and accordingly answered in the affirmative. On issue Nos. 2, the court found the issue in favour of the plaintiffs holding that the suit is maintainable. On the issue No. 5, the court found that the promise made by the plaintiffs to execute a deed of gift in future as and when the property in question vests on them, holding that the agreement is a contract after considering the provisions of Sections 2(b), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 2(h) and Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act which is enforceable under the law. On issue Nos. 1 and 6, the court found both the issues in favour of the plaintiffs holding that, the plaint is not liable to be rejected under 07 Rule 11 of the Code. On issue No. 7, the court found that the land was acquired under Section 6(1) of the Assam (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 1964 though compensation was paid part by part for requisition, but no payment was made as compensation for acquisition and therefore, the issue was answered in the affirmative. On issue No. 3, the court found that the defendants are not entitled to raise the plea of court fee which should be left between the court and the plaintiffs whereby decided the issues in favour of the plaintiffs. On issue Nos. 8 and 9, the court found that in view of the decisions arrived at on different issues in favour of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree as prayed for.
11. Heard Mr. B.R. Dey, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Miss B. Sarkar for the appellant in R.F.A. No. 16/2004 and Mr. S. Chamaria, learned standing counsel, Gauhati Municipal Corporation, appearing for the appellants in R.F.A. No. 40/ 2004. Also heard Mr. D.K. Bhattacharyya learned Senior counsel for the respondents assisted by Mr. S. Ali in both the appeals. None appeared for the State of Assam.
12. Opening the argument on behalf of the appellants in R.F.A. No. 16/2004, Mr. B.R. Dey, Senior Counsel assisted by Miss Bipasha Sarkar has taken us through the entire evidence on record including the pleadings of the parties and also the definition clause of Section 2(a) to 2(h) and Section 10 of the Contract Act in order to impress the court that agreement dated 19.1.85 between the Government and Municipal Corporation in one hand and the plaintiffs on the other hand, do not have sanctity under the law, contending that the agreement as aforesaid is not a contract under the law and is thus invalid, which cannot be accepted as contact, since the agreement was made without consideration and the gift alleged to be made by the plaintiffs are not the owners of the land in view of acquisition of land by the Government in exercise of power under Section 6(1) of Assam (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 1964 and the said acquisition made under the Act cannot be questioned in a court of law in the form of a suit for specific performance of agreement which is a bar under Section 17 of the Assam (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964.
13. The learned Sr. Counsel has further argued that the Clause 2 of the agreement vide Ext. 19 dated 19.1.85 was very specific, that the Government would hand over and deliver Khas possession of the 'B' schedule land along with the building to the 2nd party on or before 31.3.85 and thus the limitation runs from 31.3.85 for the suit of specific performance of agreement and the suit having been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation i.e. on 2.1.91 and hence the suit was liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. The Sr. Counsel has referred the following decisions in support of his contentions viz;
: AIR2006SC1270 Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh and Ors. v. Shantikunj Investment (P) Ltd. and Ors.
(2003) 2 GLT 70, Abdul Matlib His Legal Heirs Rupjan Bivi and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors.
14. Mr. Chamaria, appearing for the appellants in R.F.A. No. 40/2004, has supported the argument advanced by Mr. B.R. Dey, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the appellant in R.F.A. No. 16/04.
Countering the attack, the learned Sr. Counsel Mr. D.K. Bhattacharyya, assisted by Mr. Samnur Ali, Advocate has drawn the attention of this Court to Ext. 19 and urged that there was no date fixed for performance of the agreement dated 19.1.85 and the Government and the Gauhati Municipal Corporation have come out with a specific plea, that there inability to perform their part only in the year 1989/1990 respectively and therefore urged that in absence of date in the agreement to be performed, the proviso to Section 54 of the Limitation Act would be applicable and hence suit was filed within the period of limitation i.e. on 2.1.91 and the trial Court has rightly decided the question of limitation in favour of the plaintiffs and the contention of limitation raised in the appeal requires no interference.
15. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned Senior Counsel has further argued that Sections 2(b) to 2(h) along with Section 10 of the Contract Act, if read together with the agreement dated 19.1.85, it would show that there was a lawful consideration between the parties because the Government would get 4 Kathas 4 Lechas of land which is described in schedule 'C' of land on release of 3 Kathas 8 Lechas of land described in schedule 'B' of the land and the document being executed and registered, the parties are bound by the agreement and on being failure to hand over vacant possession as being agreed, the suit was filed for specific performance of the contract, whereas, the plaintiffs were willing to perform their part as agreed upon and hence the contention raised has no leg to stand in a suit for specific performance of contract.
16. The Sr. Counsel has further urged that the agreement dated 19.1.85 vide Ext 19 was executed between the Government of Assam and Gauhati Municipal Corporation in one hand and the plaintiffs on the other and the plaintiffs have sought for a decree of release of 3 Kathas 8 Lechas of land described in schedule 'B' of the plaint, whereas, the entire evidence on record would show that the appellant herein could not specify before the learned trial Court in which land they are in possession and the agreement being executed between the Government and Gauhati Municipal Corporation in one hand and the plaintiff on the other, the appellants have no locus standi to agitate the matter in the facts and circumstances of the case, more so, when the State of Assam and Gauhati Municipal Corporation have not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court. In support of his contention he has referred the following decisions viz;
: AIR1994AP244 : Netyam Venkataramanna and Ors. v. Mahankali Narasimhan;
: AIR1997SC1598 : Prithi alias Sansi v. Jati Ram and Ors.
17. Though the Gauahati Municipal Corporation has not preferred any appeal against the judgment and decree rendered by the learned trial Court, however, participated in the hearing and argued that since the land in question has not been derequisitioned by the Government, the land had already vests with the Municipality and therefore, the plaintiff have no locus standi to file the suit for specific performance of the contract and urged that the judgment and decree impugned deserves to be interfered with by the appellate court.
18. From the arguments advanced and stand taken by the parties, the court is asked to answer as to whether the agreement dated 19.1.85, Ex. 19, is enforceable under the law. In order to find out the answer, the agreement dated 19.1.85 is to be read as a whole. On a plain reading of the agreement it would disclose the following viz;
i) The agreement was executed on 19.1.85 by the Governor of Assam and the Gauhati Municipal Corporation represented by the Commissioner, Gauhati Municipal Corporation of the one part and the plaintiffs on the other part. The said agreement was executed, signed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam Panchayat and Commnity Development Department on behalf of Governor of Assam and Commissioner, Gauhati Municipal Corporation of one part and three plaintiff on the other which was registered under the Registration Act;
ii) The Clause 2 of the agreement dated 19.1.85 is under attack which reads as follows:
(2) That (1) the Government of Assam and (2) the Gauhati Municipal Corporation (the first party) will take early action to withdraw the notification for acquisition of land issued vide Government notification No. RLA 350/78/12 dated 7.2.80 published in Assam Gazette on 21.5.80 and will request the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, to de-requisition the area of 3 Kathas 8 Lachas of land described in the schedule 'B' given hereunder and to deliver and handover Khas and vacant possession of the said land along with the building to the Second party on or before 31.3.85.
The clause whether discloses that the suit for specific performance of agreement run from 1.4.85 or from the date of notice only when the performance had been refused;
iii) There is no dispute that the agreement, vide Ext. 19, were entered into by the Governor of Assam and the Gauhati Municipal Corporation represented by the Commissioner, Gauhati Municipal Corporation, which clearly demonstrate that they were aware of the said agreement. The State of Assam before the learned trial court never chose to file written statement and/or dispute the contentions raised in the plaint. The State of Assam never denied or disputed the terms of agreement nor raised any plea that the agreement was not binding on the State or the same was illegal. In fact, it has come to the evidence that the plaintiffs have challenged the acquisition of the land in question being Civil Rule No. 908 of 1983. In the said Civil Rule, the Government of Assam had made a specific averments regarding their inability to perform their part in the year 1990, which raises the cause of action for the suit for specific performance of agreement. Therefore this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Government of Assam and the Gauhati Municipal Corporation are liable having regard to nature of transaction and authority of those who had executed it.
iv) The reference has been made to the definition clause of Section 2(a) to 2(h) and Section 10 of the Contract Act. A bare reading of the agreement would show that an offer was made which was specific and certain and the Government of Assam and the Gauhati Municipal Corporation had accepted the terms of offer in regard to handing over the Khas and vacant possession of land measuring 3 Kathas 12 Lechas of land along with the building described in schedule 'B' of the plaint and on release as aforesaid the plaintiffs would execute a deed of gift of land measuring 4 Kathas 4 Lechas described in schedule 'A' of the plaint, which gives rise to a legal relationship between the parties. Obviously, the plaintiffs have acted on the aforesaid agreement and it would definitely lead to the inference that the agreement was concluded as a contract between the parties and are binding on the State of Assam and Gauhati Municipal Corporation. The Schedule 'B' land as agreed upon be released in favour of the plaintiffs and on release, 4 Kathas and 4 Lechas of schedule 'A' land is required to be gifted in favour of the State of Assam and Gauhati Municipal Corporation for public purposes, which can be termed as valuable consideration on the part of both the promisor and the promisee and therefore, this Court with an unambiguous term hold that the agreement entered between the parties are contract under Section 10 of the Contract Act and therefore, enforceable under the law.
v) A close scrutiny of Clause 2 of the agreement referred to by the counsel of the appellant, urging that the suit has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation makes it clear that the same is misconceived. The reason for such banking, as this Court understood, is for the specific term stipulated in the said clause that vacant possession of 'B' schedule land is to be delivered on or before 31.3.85. The said clause was inserted with a qualifying word that the Government would request the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup to de-requisition the area of 3 Kathas 8 Lechas of the land described in the schedule 'B' land from acquisition, which had not been done to enable the plaintiffs to execute a deed of gift in respect of 'A' schedule land and ultimately the Government of Assam and Gauhati Municipal Corporation expressed their inability to perform their part during 1989/ 1990 respectively and the suit was filed on 2.1.91 which is within the prescribed period of limitation which, however, has rightly been held by the learned trial court.
vi) This court has, however took (sic.) up the question of limitation, A bare perusal of Article 54 of the Limitation Act would show that the period of limitation begins to run from the date of on which the agreement of contract was to be specifically performed. In terms of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the period prescribed therein shall begin from the date fixed for the performance of contract. The contract is to be performed by both the parties to the agreement. In this case the proforma respondents in this appeal was to de-requisition the 'B' schedule land and hand over vacant possession of the land along with the building and on release, the plaintiffs would execute a deed of gift in favour of proforma respondents in respect of 'A' schedule land. The said contract was refused by the State of Assam on 25.9.90 and the suit was filed on 2.1.91 which was within the time of limitation. Even otherwise on a bare perusal of the agreement dated 19.1.85, it is not intended by the parties that the limitation would begin to run from the date of perfection of title.
vii) Another question raised by the respondents herein as to the maintainability of the appeal preferred by appellants No. 5 to 26. In order to answer this question, the court has gone through the agreement dated 19.1.85 and the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record. The agreement was executed between the Government of Assam and the Gauhati Municipal Corporation in one hand and the plaintiffs on the other, and the learned trial court on the basis of agreement, decreed the suit, which is binding on the proforma respondents herein. In absence of appeal by the proforma respondents, the appeal filed by the private respondents are not maintainable and this Court holds that the agreement in question which are binding on proforma respondents cannot be questioned by the private respondents and hence, this Court hold the instant appeal is not maintainable.
19. The decision cited by Mr. Dey, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants in R.F.A. No. 16/2004, is not applicable in the instant case. The case reported in (2003) 2 GLT 70 (Supra) relates to a suit, where the order of acquisition of the land by the Deputy Commissioner under the Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964 was under challenge. The court has held that land acquired, under the aforesaid Act, cannot be questioned before any Civil Court which is a bar under Section 17 of the Act. In the instant case the requisition and acquisition of land is not under challenge before the court. The agreement dated 19.1.85, wherein the parties entered into contract and on refusal to act upon the contract, the other party filed the suit for specific performance of contract and therefore, the decision cited (Supra) has no application in the instant appeal.
20. The other decision cited by the learned Counsel which is reported in : AIR2006SC1270 (Supra) relates to legitimate expectation, which has no relevancy in the instant case. The case relates to observations made in the writ petition, which cannot bind the parties in a properly constituted suit where the rights of the parties are to be adjudicated. The reference of the case relates to future course of action to be adjudicated upon a civil suit between the plaintiffs and the appellants and hence this Court is not inclined to give any direction relating to future course of action in the facts and circumstances of the case.
21. The decision cited by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs in : AIR1994AP244 and : AIR1997SC1598 (Supra) fully support the case of the plaintiffs in a situation like this and therefore upholds the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.
22. In the result, both the appeals abovementioned are found to be devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed with cost, which we hereby do, affirming the judgment and decree rendered by the learned trial court.