Skip to content


Ramchand Vs. Sundersingh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil First Appeal No. 1 of 1976
Judge
Reported in1976WLN(UC)99
AppellantRamchand
RespondentSundersingh
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
contract act - contract to sale--proof of its cancellation.;(b) civil procedure code - parties--agricultural lands allotted by the custodian department--held, union of india is not a necessary party to the sun for cancellation of contract.;no provision of law has been shown to me which makes the union of india to be a necessary party to such a suit. simply because the agricultural lands were allotted to the defendant by the custodian department that does not in any manner make the union government to be a necessary party to the suit. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed..........27-11-1973. on the deposit of the said amount, the defendant will obtain the sanad or patta of the suit lands from the authority concerned within three minis. incase the defendants fails to apply for patta or sanad, it will be open to the plaintiff, if he choosea so to arrange the patta and sanad for the defendant. when the patta or sanad is issued to the defendant, he will execute a sale deed of the suit lands in favour of the plaintiff for the price of rs. 17000/- (rs. seventeen thousand) and get it registered. in case he fails to execute and register the sale deed, the plaintiff will be entitled to get it executed and registered through the court in accordance with law. the amount of rs. 9000/- (rs. nine thousand) deposited in the court by the plaintiff will thereafter be paid to the.....
Judgment:

S.N. Modi, J.

1. This civil first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Ganganagar dated 19-9-1973 in a suit for specific performance of the contract.

2. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are these.

3. The defendant-appellant, was allotted agricultural lands situate in Chak I SEN and Chak 3 SEN, village Sabuana by the, Custodian Department. Particulars of the agricultural lands are fully mentioned in para No. 2 of the plaint On 29-1-1968 the defendant agreed to sell the entire agricultural lands to the plaintiff-respondent Sunder Singh for a sub or Rs. 17,000/- and executed an agreement in this respect on the earns day. The defendant also handed ever possession of the entire lands to the plaintiff in pursuance of the agreement. A sum of Rs. 8,000/- was paid by the plaintiff towards the sale price on the date of the agreement. For the payment of the remaining sale price it wag agreed between the parties that the defendant would obtain 'Sanad' of the of the lands in dispute form the Government on or before 30.6.1968 and execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of Rs. 9,000/-. It was further agreed that in case the defendant committed default in executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on or before 30.6.68, he would return the earned money of Rs. 8,000/- and also pay an additional sum of Rs. 8,000/- and damages to the plaintiff the defendant did not execute the sale deed within the stipulated time as he could not obtain the required 'Sanad' from the Government. The parties therefore, on 24-6-68 extended the lime fir performance of the contract upto 26.8.68 and an endorsement to the effect was made on the back of the agreement dated 29.1.68 The defendant again failed to execute the sale deed by 26.8.68 because the price of the agricultural land had gone very high in the meantime, The plaintiff therefore, brought the present suit for specific performance of the contract of sale and in the alternative for recovery of Rs. 8,000/- paid to the defendant as earnest money plus Rs. 8,000/- as damages, total Rs. 18,000/-. The plaintiff specifically pleaded in the plaint that he was ready & willing to perform his part of the contract but it was the defend on who avoided the performance of the contract on account of lining of prices of the agricultural lands.

4. The defendant resisted the suit. He admitted execution of the agreement on 29-1-68. He further admitted to have received Rs. 8,000/- as earnest money. He also admitted that under the agreement he was required to execute the sale deed on or before 30-6-68. He also admitted that on 24-6-68 he extended the time of performance we pleaded by the plaintiff. He, however, denied that the possession of the land in dispute was delivered to the plaintiff on 29-1-68. He pleaded that the contract for sale was by mutual corset. It was forth replaced that he was a mere allottee of the fields, and therefore, he was not in a position to sell that land hill he obtained the 'Sanad' from the Government. He further pleaded that a Panchayat was summoned on 23-6-68 and it was settled before in the patties that the defendant would return the amount of earnest money to the plaintiff within two months' and the agreement would stand rescinded or cancelled. The defendant also pleaded that in accordance with this agreement between the parties be returned the amount of earnest money i.e. Rs. 8000/- to the plaintiff through Endeen and Ali Mohammed and as such the plaintiff was not entitled to claim performance of the contract It was also related that the Junior Government was a necessary party in absence of which the suit was not maintainable.

5. On the Headings of the parties the following issues were framed.

1. Whether the defendant did not deliver possession of the fields described in para 2 of the plaint to the plaintiff in part performance of the agreement pleaded in para 2 of the plaint?

2. Whether on 23-6-68 the parties and the Panchayat settled to cancel the agreement, to return the amount of 8,000/- within two months to the plaintiff through Eindeen and Ali Mohammed, on return of the said amount the agreement would stand cancelled?

3. Whether the date 26-8-68 was inserted in the agreement no the plaintiffs request and the defendant returned Rs. 8000/- to the plaintiff within 1 months and thus the agreement stood rescinded?

4. In case the plaintiff is no allowed the relief by way of specific performance, is he entitled to return Rs. 8000/- of this part price and Rs. 8000/- as damages from the defendant?

5. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the specific performance of the contract of sale for reasons pleaded in para 11 of the written statement?

6. Whether the Union Government is a necessary party and if so what is its bearing on the suit?

7. Whether the defendant was not entitled to sell two fields in dispute for reasons pleaded in para 14 of the written statement and if so what is its bearing on the suit?

8. Whether the defendant is entitled to get compensatory costs?

9. Relief?

6. The learned Additional District Judge after examining the evidence, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The operative portion of the judgment runs as under:

To sum up

Due to my findings on issues Nos. 1 to 8 the plaintiff succeeds and is entitled to judgment.

The plaintiff's suit is decreed with costs against the defendant in the following terms.

The plaintiff will deposit the remaining balance of the sale price Rs. 9000/- (Rupees Nine thousand) in the Court on or before 27-11-1973. On the deposit of the said amount, the defendant will obtain the Sanad or Patta of the suit lands from the Authority concerned within three minis. Incase the defendants fails to apply for Patta or Sanad, it will be open to the plaintiff, if he choosea so to arrange the Patta and Sanad for the defendant. When the Patta or Sanad is issued to the defendant, he will execute a sale deed of the suit lands in favour of the plaintiff for the price of Rs. 17000/- (Rs. Seventeen thousand) and get it registered. In case he fails to execute and register the sale deed, the plaintiff will be entitled to get it executed and registered through the Court in accordance with law. The amount of Rs. 9000/- (Rs. Nine thousand) deposited in the court by the plaintiff will thereafter be paid to the defendant.

In case, no Sanad or Patta is issued to the defendant and the sale deed consequently is not executed and registered, the defendant will pay Rs. 16000/- (Rs. sixteen thousand) to the plaintiff together with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of Rs. 6/- (six) percent per annum on the amount of Rs. 8000/- (Rs. Eight thousand) from the date of institution of suit till payment is made.

Let a decree he drawn up in accordance with the terms of judgment specifying the land in dispute for purposes of identification.

6. It is against this decree that the defendant has preferred this appeal. Arguing the appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant confined his arguments on the findings arrived at by the trial court on issues Nos. 2, 3 and 6 only. All these issues were decided against the defendant.

7. Issues Nos. 2 and 3 relate to settlement between the parties before the Panchayat and cancellation of the contract of sale. The learned Additions District Judge has discussed the entire evidence on these issues exhaustively and has even cogent reasons for disbelieving the statement of DW 2 Eindeen DW 3 Sona Singh. D.W. 4 Rulia Singh and D.W. 1 Ram Chand (defendant) I need not reiterate the reasons given by the learned Additional District Judges for disbelieving these witnesses. Suffice it to say that had the contract been rescinded un 23-6-68, the defendant would not have agreed to extend the period for performance of the contract till 26-8-68. There is also no cogent evidence to show that as pre agreement before the Panchayat the amount of Rs. 8,000/- was paid to the plaintiff. In this respect the learned Additional District Judge his disbelieved the statements of the defendant Ramahand and his witnesses D.W. 2 Eindeen, D.W. 3 Sona Singh & D.W. 4 Rulia Singh & in my opinion rightly. Had this amount been paid to the plaintiff, the agreement would have been cancelled or returned to the defendant. Not only that atleast a receipt Rs. 8000/- would have been obtained by the defendant. In the present case neither any receipt was obtained for repayment of Rs. 8000/- from the plaintiff nor the agreement was cancelled or taken back from the plaintiff In my opinion the Addl. District Judge rightly decided both these issues against the defendant.

8. As regards issue No. 6 it may be mentioned that no provision of law has been shown to me which makes the Union of India to be a necessary party to such a suit. Simply because the agricultural has do were allotted to the defendant by the Custodian Department that does not in any manner make the Union Government to be a necessary party to the suit. No other point has been pressed before me.

9. The appeal fails and dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //