IMPORTANT POINT
Unless the contents of the document in question and evidence in relation thereto are so clear to infer a prohibition against assignment or transfer, right of repurchase has to be held to be assignable or transferable and cannot be treated as personal to contracting parties.

Headnote:
A. Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 15(b) - Specific performance -Transfer by Transferees and Assignees - The owners sold the land to respondent No. 1 who executed an agreement for reconveyance in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 - Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 sold their right to obtain reconveyance of sale in favour of sholding that right of repurchase could not t be transferred to a stranger/appellant, by respondents no. 2 to 4 - Not proper There was no implied prohibition of transfer or assignment , in view of the clear provisions of Section 15(b) of the Act- The term 'any party thereto' or 'their representative in interest.' includes the transferees and assignees -In the absence of any words or expressions in the documents indicating prohibition on assignment or transfer of right of repurchase and in the face of clear provisions of Section 15(b) of the Act, an implied prohibition cannot be read into the terms of the documents-Merely because in the documents, there is mention of 'heirs' of the contracting parties but not their 'assignees' or 'transferees,' the legal right of assignment available to the benefit of original contracting party under Section 15(b) of the Act cannot be denied to it.[Paras 11 to 17 ans 22]
B. U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953- Additional plea- The respondent seeking permission to raise additional grounds that suit land, recorded as Holding No. 306 area 0.8693 hectares, as a result of consolidation proceedings under the provisions of U.P. Act,, stood converted into a new holding called 'Chuk' comprising several other plots with area 0.7724 hectares.- The case remanded to trial court for deciding the said plea. [Para 20]

JUDGMENT

Dharmadhikari, J.-The High Court of Allahabad in Second Appeal before it by impugned judgment dated 30.9.1997, concurring with the two courts below, has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant seeking specific performance of Agreement of Repurchase of property in dispute on the ground that under the terms of the agreement dated 4.2.1971, the right of repurchase was personal in favour of the original contracting parties (defendant Nos. 2 to 4) and the said right was not assignable or transferable in favour of the plaintiff.

2. The only legal question involved is whether the terms of the agreement of repurchase dated 4.2.1971 contain any implied prohibition on the original contracting parties (particularly defendants 2 to 4) from transferring or assigning their rights in favour of third party?

3. The relevant facts for deciding the above legal question are as under:-

Defendants 2 to 4 were Bhumidars of the lands in dispute situate at village Nala, District Muzaffarnagar in the State of Uttar Pradesh. On 4.2.1971, the owners executed registered sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 1 (contesting respondent No. 1 herein) for a consideration of Rs. 4900/-. On the same day defendant No. 1 who had purchased the property executed an agreement for reconveyance of the said property in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 4. The relevant terms of the Agreement of Repurchase dated 4.2.1971, on interpretation of which the parties are at variance, in its relevant parts (rendered into English) read as under :-

"Ex. 4 dated 4.2.1971

ORIGINAL ON STAMP PAPER OF RS. 2,25/-

Whereas we, Daryao Singh son of Hardeva the first party and Surajmal, Peetam and Babu sons of Rati Ram, the second party, Jat, residents of Village Nala Pargana Kandhala, Tehsil Budhana District Muzaffarnagar. The party No. 2 has executed a sale deed today in favour of the party No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 4900/- in respect of 2 Bigha 7 Biswas of the land of Khasra No. 95, bearing a rent of Rs. 6.25 annually situate in Khata No. 331 of village Nala, Pargana Kandhala, Tehsil Budhna, District Muzaffarnagar, about which it was agreed between the parties that if the second party paid the entire consideration of the sale deed Rs. 4900/- to the first party or to the heirs of the first party within ten years from today then in that situation the first party will reconvey the aforesaid land by sale-deed in favour of the second party without any objection. If for any reason the first party does not execute a sale deed in favour of the second party, after five years but within ten years from the date of sale deed dated 4.2.71, then the second party will have a right to deposit the entire consideration Rs. 4900/- in the Civil Court and get the sale deed executed by the Court, the first party will have no objection. The present agreement will be binding upon the parties and the heirs of the parties. Therefore, these few comments by way of agreement of reconveyance of sale within ten years are being written so that this document may be used when necessary. After the limitation of ten years the second party will have no right at all to get released the aforesaid and from party No. 1."

[Underlining by court to add emphasis]

4. Under the above terms of the agreement of repurchase defendant Nos. 2 to 4 sold their rights to obtain reconveyance of sale in favour of plaintiff (present appellant) by executing a document dated 2.6.1977, on payment of a sum of Rs. 19,000/-. The said document is also registered and its execution is not in dispute.

5. The court of Munsif Magistrate, Kairana, Distt. Muzafarnagar dismissed the suit by holding that defendant Nos. 2 to 4 having already transferred their rights in the property in favour of defendant No. 1, had no right left in the property to transfer the same in favour of the plaintiff. In the opinion of the trial court the document dated 2.6.1977 executed in favour of the plaintiff does not amount to transfer of right of repurchase in favour of the plaintiff but

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 1174

IMPORTANT POINTUnless the contents of the document in question and evidence in relation thereto are so clear to infer a prohibition against assignment or transfer, right of repurchase has to be held to be assignable or transferable and cannot be treated as personal to contracting parties.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Unless the contents of the document in question and evidence in relation thereto are so clear to infer a prohibition against assignment or transfer, right of repurchase has to be held to be assignable or transferable and cannot be treated as personal to contracting parties.