SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1956 Supreme(SC) 5

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BOSE, IMAM AND CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, JJ.
Jai Narain Ram Lundia, Appellant
Versus
Kedar Nath Khetan and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 206 of 1955
31st January 1956.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. Veda Vyas, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. S. K. Kapur and Mr. Ganpat Rai Advocates, with him), for Appellant; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (Mr. K. B. Asthana and Mr. C. P. Lal, Advocates, with him), for Respondent No. 1.

Advocates:
C.K.DAFTARY, C.P.LAL, GANPAT RAI, K.B.ASTHANA, S.K.KAPOOR, Veda Vyasa

Headnote:DECREE IMPOSING OBLIGATIONS ON BOTH SIDES - COURT CANNOT ADD TO OR ALTER THE DECREE - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - OBLIGATIONS OF EXECUTING COURT - DECREE IMPOSING CONDITIONS ON BOTH SIDES - WHERE OBLIGATIONS ARE DISTINCT AND SEVERABLE

       -where a decree imposes obligations on both sides which are so conditioned that performance by one is conditional on performance by the other, it is not executable unless the party seeking the execution not only offers to perform his side, but when objection is raised, satisfies the executing Court that he is in a position to do so

       -this Section expressly gives the Court executing the decree sent to it, the same powers in executing such decree as if it has been passed by itself

       -the executing Court has to see that the defendant gives the plaintiff the very thing that the decree directs and not something else, so if there is any dispute about its identity or substance no body but the Court executing the decree can determine it

       -when a decree imposes obligations on both sides which are so conditioned that performance by one is conditional on performance by the other execution will not be ordered unless the party seeking execution not only offers to perform his side but, when objection is raised, satisfies the executing Court that he is in a position to do so. Any other rule would have the effect of varying the conditions of the decree : a thing that an executing Court cannot do

       -there may of course be decrees where the obligations imposed on each side are distinct and severable and in such a case each party might well be left to its own execution. But when the obligations are reciprocal and are interlinked so that they cannot be separated, any attempt to enforce performance unilaterally would be to defeat the directions in the decree and to go behind them which, of course, an executing Court cannot do

       

Judgement

BOSE, J. : This appeal arises out of certain execution proceedings. The decree which the appellant, Jainarain Ram Lundia, seeks to execute is one that directs specific performance of a contract to sell certain shares in a private limited company known as the Ganga Devi Sugar Mills, together with a five annas share in a partnership firm called the Marwari Brothers, on payment of a sum of Rs. 2,45,000.

2. The fact are as follows. The partnership firm, known as the Marwari Brothers, was formed on 29-2-1936. The partners consisted of two groups called the Bettia Group and the Padrauna Group. The Padrauna Group consisted of (1) Kedarnath Khetan and (2) a firm called Surajmal.

These two were the plaintiffs in the suit. Kedarnath was one of the partners of the Surajmal firm. The Bettia Group consisted of (1) Gobardhan Das (2) Jainarain Ram Lundia (3) Badri Prasad and (4) Bisheshwar Nath. On Bisheshwar Nath s death his son Madan Lal Jhunjhunwalls stepped into his shoes. These persons were the defendants.

3. The Marwari Brothers Firm was formed for the purpose of promoting a company for starting a sugar mill in Champaran and for securing the managing agency of the company for itself for a period of ninety years. This was done. The capital of the company consisted of Rs. 8,00,000 divided into 800 shares of Rs. 1000 each.

The shares were distributed as follows. In the Bettia Group Gobardhan Das and his brother Badri Prasad had 100 shares. Jainarain had 150 and Madan Lal had 100. The Bettia Group thus had 350 shares between them. The other group (Padrauna) held the remaining 450 shares.

4. About five years later the two sets of partners fell out and, as a result, the Bettia Group agreed, on 1-1-1941, to sell a certain number of their shares in the Ganga Devi Sugar Mills Limited to the Padrauna Group along with a certain share in the Marwari Brothers firm.

The exact number of shares, agreed to be sold and the extent of the share in the firm was a matter of dispute but that does not concern us at this stage because we are only concerned with the final result embodied in the decree now under execution.

5. The Padrauna Group sued for specific performance and the dispute was carried as far as the Federal Court. That Court affirmed the decree of the Calcutta High Court on 6-5-1949. The substance of the decree was this :

1. "It is declared that upon payment and or tender to the defendants-appellants Jainarain Ram Lundia and Madan Lal Jhunjhunwala, of the sum Rs. 2,45,000 ..... with interest thereon ....... By the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are entitled to 250 shares belonging to the said defendants in the Ganga Devi Sugar Mills Limited and five annas share belonging to them in the Marwari Brothers ...... and to all dividends and profits in respect thereof with effect from 1-2-1941......"

2. "And it is further ordered and decreed that against payment or tender by the plaintiffs to the said defendants ....... Of the said sum of Rs. 2,45,000 with interest as aforesaid the said defendants - appellants and all proper parties do execute in favour of the plaintiffs proper deed or deeds of transfer or assignment of the said 250 shares in the Ganga Devi Sugar Mills Limited and the said five annas share in the Marwari Brothers......"

6. This was in slight variation of the first Court s decree. The exact variation does not matter. All that it is necessary to note is that the plaintiffs (that is, the Padrauna Group) tendered the money some time after the first Court s decree and before the Calcutta High Court s decree.

The tender was not accepted as the defendants (the Bettia Group) had appealed. It is admitted that there was no second tender after the High Court s decree.

7. After the Federal Court had settled the matter one of the defendants, Jainarain Ram Lundia, applied to the Calcutta High Court for execution. The decree was transferred to the Subordinate Judge, Motihari, and the execution proceedings started there on 25-1-1951. One of the plaintiffs, Ke














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top