Judgment

CHANDRACHUD, J. :- This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment dated December 7, 1967 of a learned single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad, setting aside a decree of affirmance passed by the III Additional Civil Judge, Meerut.

2. An extensive area comprised in Plot No. 765 of Mauza Bhaunjar, Tehsil Ghaziabad, was sub-divided by the co-owners into small plots, as a part of a housing scheme called "Chandrapuri Colony". The case of the plaintiffs who on behalf of the various purchasers of the sub-plots, brought the present suit under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that a representation was made to them that plot No. 19 will be reserved for bieng used in common as a Dharmashala and yet it was sold to one Manohari Devi who in turn sold it to the defendant. The defendant constructed a boundary wall around the plot, rendering impossible the use of the plot for common benefit. Plaintiffs therefore asked for a declaration that plot No. 19 was earmarked for a Dharmshala, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the construction of a Dharmashala and for possession of the plot after demolition of the boundary wall.

3. Defendant denied that plot No. 19 was reserved for the use of a Dharmshala and contended that Manohari Devi who, under the sale in her favour had become an absolute owner of the plot was entitled to sell it to him.

4. While decreeing the suit, the trial Court and the 1st appellate Court held that plot No. 19 was set apart from the construction of a Dharmshala, that the co-owners had lost their ownership over that plot and therefore they had not right to sell it. The High Court having reversed those findings and dismissed the suit, plaintiffs have filed this appeal.

5. The principal contention of the plaintiffs, is that a representation was made to the purchasers by or on behalf of the co-owners that plot No. 19 would be reserved for a Dharmshala, that the purchasers paid high prices for the plots by reason of that representation and therefore the co-owners had no right to sell the plot to Manohari Devi who, in turn, had no right to sell it to the defendant. There are numerous difficulties in accepting this contention. There is no evidence as to who, on behalf of the co-owners, made the particular representation. It is said that it was announced over a loudspeaker, while the housing scheme was being advertised, that a plot will be reserved for a Dharmshala. Who made the announcement and under whose authority are matters on which plaintiffs have been unable to shed any light. Thus, the argument lacks basis. Besides, though modern contrivances like microphones are useful aids in propagation of views or dissemination of information, they have not yet acquired notoriety as carriers of binding representations. Promises held out over loudspeakers are often claptraps of politics. In the instant case, the announcement, was if at all, a puffing up of property put up for sale.

6. It would appear that in the maps which were annexed to some of the sale-deeds, plot No. 19 was described as "Dharmshala". But, in the context, that circumstance cannot be construed as containing a representation that the particular plot will in perpetuity remain unbuilt upon. It was on September 21, 1946 that the plot was sold to Manohari Devi. And yet, maps annexed to subsequent sale-deeds described the plot as "Dharmshala". The transfer in favour of Manohari Devi was effected by a registered deed of sale and therefore, subsequent purchasers of the other plots in Chandrapuri Colony had notice, constructive at any rate, that plot No. 19 was not subject to any restraining ovenant. It seems clear that, in fact, the co-owners had at no time created fetters on their disposing power. The decision in K. S. Nanji and Co. v. Jatashankar Dossa, (1962) 1 SCR 492 = (AIR 1961 SC 1474) on which plaintiffs rely proceeded on different facts for, there the map was annexed to the deed of lease in order