Important pointIn civil matters, rights of parties cannot be determined just on basis of any other judgment on question of facts.

Headnote:Specific Relief Act, 1963—Section 38—Injunction suit—Plaintiff-appellant was allotted a plot and he deposited its cost price in August 1987—Defendant-respondent raised a demand of Rs. 38,400/- by a letter dt. 15-1-1993 and plaintiff challenged the demand by injunction suit—Suit was defended on plea that price indicated in allotment letter was tentative and increased price was on account of order issued by State Government to pay enhanced price to Animal Husbandry Dept. whose land had been acquired—Trial Court decreed suit holding that as per clause 9 of letter of allotment price could be increased only when compensation amount was enhanced by Authority under Land Acquisition Act—District Judge set aside the decree in appeal and judgment was confirmed in second appeal by High Court—Appeal—No evidence was produced by defendant to substantiate its plea that enhancement was effected on account of increased in price of acquisition of land—Trial Court rightly approached the matter and impugned judgment was misreading of evidence liable to be set aside—Trial Court decree was liable to be restored.
Held : In civil matters, the rights of the parties cannot be determined just on the basis of any other judgment on questions of fact. It is the duty of the defendants to specifically plead and prove their case by leading proper evidence in the matter. As per the evidence led by the defendant-respondent i.e. the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence, the allegations made by the defendants are not substantiated. So far as condition No.9 of the allotment letter is concerned, there is no dispute that the defendants can demand additional price as the price at the time of allotment was tentative. But in order to justify the enhancement of the price as per condition No.9 of the allotment letter, the defendants had to lead proper evidence to substantiate the allegation. There is no such evidence produced by the defendants. Therefore, the trial court has rightly approached in the matter and this is a case of total misreading of the evidence by the learned Additional District Judge as well as by learned Single Judge of the High Court. In the result of our above discussion, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the trial court is justified and the view taken by the Additional District Judge as well as learned Single Judge of the High Court in the facts and circumstances of this case does not appear to be justified. Hence, we allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court as well as the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar and confirm the order dated March 27, 1996 passed by the trial court. (Paras 5 and 6)

Judgment

A.K. Mathur, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court whereby the learned Single Judge by his order dated October 29, 1998 has dismissed the Second Appeal. Aggrieved against this order the present Special Leave Petition was filed and leave was granted by this Court. Pending appeal, the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge was stayed, thereby the additional amount claimed by the respondents was stayed.

2. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant herein was allotted Plot No. 940 vide allotment letter bearing No. 21548 dated August 20, 1986 and he deposited an amount of Rs. 18,600 in compliance of the conditions of the allotment and sent the required documents. The defendant-respondents demanded the annual instalment on account of the said plot and the plaintiff-appellant deposited the same vide receipt dated August 21, 1987. After deposit of the total amount demanded by the defendant-respondents, again a demand was raised by the defendant-respondents by sending letter No. 1300 dated January 15, 1993 to the plaintiff-appellant demanding a sum of Rs. 38,400/- to be paid within a period of thirty days from the date of issue of the letter in respect of the above said plot. The plaintiff-appellant challenged this letter dated January 15, 1993 as illegal, void and against the principles of natural justice and on various other counts. The grievance of the plaintiff-appellant was that the demand raised by the defendant-respondents is not valid as the said demand is not on account of any award given by any competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act and the defendant-respondents cannot revoke the allotment made in his favour. The plaintiff-appellant made a request to the defendant-respondents to revoke the letter dated January 15, 1993 but the defendant-respondents refused to do so. Therefore, the plaintiff-appellant was compelled to file the present suit with prayer for a declaration to the effect that the letter dated January 15, 1993 in respect of Plot No. 940, Sector 14, Part, Hisar issued by defendant No.2 is illegal, void and liable to be set aside and he also prayed for consequential relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from revoking, reviewing or cancelling the allotment letter issued by the defendants vide Memo No. 21548 dated August 20, 1986 and from taking any action on the basis of the aforesaid letter. The plaintiff-appellant also sought for temporary injunction directing the defendant-respondents to deliver the possession of the plot.

3. The defendant-respondents appeared and filed the written statement and raised number of preliminary objections as to the jurisdiction, maintainability and non-joinder of necessary parties. However, on merits, the defendant-respondents admitted that the allotment in favour of the appellant and also admitted issue of letter dated January 15, 1993. It was alleged that the plaintiff-appellant was bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment letter as in the said letter the price of the plot was tentative and the defendants were fully entitled to demand additional amount, the plaintiff was under obligation to pay the same. On the basis of these pleadings, six issues were framed by the trial court which read as under:

“1. Whether the letter No. 1300 dated 15.1.1993 issued by defendant No.2 in respect of plot No. 940 is illegal, null and void on the grounds mentioned in the plaint?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

3. Whether the civil court has got no jurisdiction to try the present suit?

4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?

5. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties?

6. Relief.”

Both the parties were allowed to lead evidence. The plaintiff in support of his case examined one Krishan Kumar as P.W.1 and the de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document