Skip to content


T.M. Doraiswami and ors. Vs. Kanniappa Reddi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Contract
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 1070 of 1969
Judge
Reported inAIR1972Mad460
ActsSpecific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 15
AppellantT.M. Doraiswami and ors.
RespondentKanniappa Reddi
Cases ReferredIn Ram Baran v. Ram Mohit
Excerpt:
- .....to the conclusion that the defendant was not bound to execute the reconveyance in favour of the legal representatives in view of the terms of the reconveyance agreement.2. under section 15 of the specific relief act. 1963, specific performance of a contract may be obtained by any party thereto or by the representative in interest or the principal of any party thereto except where the learning, skill, solvency or any personal quality of such party is a material ingredient in the contract, or where the contract provides that his interest shall not be assigned. there could be no dispute that in a contract of reconveyance of immoveable property no learning skill, or solvency or any personal quality of such party was a material ingredient. the plaintiff being the legal representatives of.....
Judgment:

1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. The filed the suit for specific performance of an agreement to reconvey the suit immoveable properties and for damages. The father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit property on 29th July 1963. On the same day under Ex. A-1 the defendant agreed to reconvey the property to the vendor if a sum of Rs. 1,600 and half of the expenses of the sale deed was paid to him within five years. On 5th May 1965 the father of the plaintiffs 1 to 3 died. On 7th June 1966 plaintiffs 1 to 3, the sons and the fourth plaintiff the widow sent a notice to the defendant demanding execution of the reconveyance and stating that they are ready and willing to pay the amount as per Ex, A-1 the agreement of reconveyance. On 14 the June 1966, the defendant sent a reply refusing to execute the reconveyance and stating that he was not bound to execute the reconveyance under the terms of Ex. A-1. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. On appeal by the defendant, the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the defendant was not bound to execute the reconveyance in favour of the legal representatives in view of the terms of the reconveyance agreement.

2. Under Section 15 of the Specific Relief Act. 1963, specific performance of a contract may be obtained by any party thereto or by the representative in interest or the principal of any party thereto except where the learning, skill, solvency or any personal quality of such party is a material ingredient in the contract, or where the contract provides that his interest shall not be assigned. There could be no dispute that in a contract of reconveyance of immoveable property no learning skill, or solvency or any personal quality of such party was a material ingredient. The plaintiff being the legal representatives of the person in who favour the agreement of reconveyance was executed, they are entitled to specific performance of the contract under Section 15(b) unless there is anything in the contract itself against the legal representatives claiming the specific performance. A true translation of the relevant clause in the agreement which was relied on by the lower appellate Court in support of its finding that there was a prohibition of sale in favour of the legal representatives is as follows:

'If it is purchased for your own use, a reconveyance deed shall be executed. If it has to be sold to some other person, a reconveyance deed shall not be executed. It is also not valid'.

It is seen from this clause that what was provided under the contract was that the defendant was not liable to execute the sale deed in favour of a third party to the contract. The legal representatives are neither assignees of the agreement no third parties to the contract. They are legal representatives of the person in whose favour the agreement was executed and as such, they are the representatives in interest within the meaning of clause (b) of Section 15. In this connection it is useful to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Hazari v. Neki, : [1968]2SCR833 . It was held in that case that the right of pre-emption was not a personal right on the part of he pre-emptor to get the re-transfer of the property form the vendee who has already become the owner of the same. In Ram Baran v. Ram Mohit, : [1967]1SCR293 , the Supreme Court held that normally, a contract, in the absence of a contrary intention, express or implied is enforceable by and against parties thereto and their legal heirs and legal representatives including assignees and transferees. We have already seen that there is a clause showing a contrary intention so far as the assignment of the contract is concerned. Since he prohibition clause does not include the legal representatives, the legal representatives are entitled to claim a reconveyance of the property. The plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to a decree for specific performance.

3. The second appeal is, therefore, allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are restored. The appellant will be entitled to their costs in the second appeal. No leave.

4. Appeal allowed.


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