Back
1930 Supreme(SC) 72
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD THANKERTON, SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON, AND SIR GEORGE LOWNDES.
MOTILAL - Appellant
Versus
NANHELAL - Respondents
On appeal from the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces.
Decided On : July. 29. 1930.
Solicitors for appellants:T. L. Wilson & Co. Solicitors for respondents: Stanley Johnson & Allen.
An agreement to transfer land requiring statutory sanction includes an implied covenant by the transferor to take all necessary steps, including applying for the required sanction, to effect the transfer.
Headnote:(A) Central Provinces Tenancy Act, 1920 - Section 50(1) - Specific Relief Act - Order XXI, Rule 32(5) - Specific performance of contract for sale of land - Transfer of cultivating rights in sir land - Where the terms of an agreement and the price paid correspond to a previous sale-deed, the subject matter of the agreement is construed to be the same as that of the deed, including cultivating rights in the sir land.
(B) Implied Covenant - Agreement to transfer land subject to statutory sanction - Where a party agrees to transfer land that requires statutory sanction for transfer, there is an implied covenant on the part of the transferor to do all things necessary to effect such transfer, which includes making an application to the revenue-officer for the required sanction.
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase a share of a village, including sir and khudkast lands. Due to financial constraints, an arrangement was made with the defendant to pay the balance of the purchase price and take the sale-deed in his own name, with an agreement to convey the share to the plaintiff within ten years upon payment of a specified amount. The defendant subsequently mortgaged the share. The plaintiff later sought specific performance of the agreement, including the transfer of cultivating rights in the sir land.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the agreement between the parties covered the cultivating rights in the sir land as the price and descriptions matched the original sale-deed. Furthermore, the court held that the defendant was under an implied obligation to apply for the necessary statutory sanction from the revenue-officer to facilitate the transfer.
Issues: Whether the agreement for sale included the cultivating rights in the sir land and whether the court had jurisdiction to order the defendant to apply for the statutory sanction required for the transfer of such rights.
Ratio Decidendi: An agreement to transfer proprietary rights in land that requires statutory sanction implies a covenant to perform all necessary acts to effect such transfer, including applying for the required sanction from the relevant authority.
Result: Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
-
land transfer
- specific performance
- tenancy law
-
land transfer
-
civil procedure
- execution of decrees
Judgement
Appeal (No. 52 of 1929) from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces (April 8, 1926), reversing a decree of the District Judge of Hoshangabad (September 30, 1924).
The appeal arose out of a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a share of a mauza subject to the provisions of the Central Provinces Tenancy Act, 1920, " with sir and khudkast." The first appellant was the son of the vendor, who was defendant No. 1, the other appellants were mortgagees from him. The respondents were the assignees of the purchaser Masammat Jankibai, who was plaintiff in the suit.
The facts, and the terms of s. 50, sub-s. 1, of the above Act, appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The appellate Court (reversing the trial judge) made a decree in favour of the plaintiff in the terms appearing in the present judgment. The assignment by Jankibai to the respondents was made after the decree, and the respondents names were ordered to be substituted for hers as respondents to the present appeal.
1930. July 17, 18. Dunne K.C. and Wallach for the appellants. De Gruyther K.C. and Parikh for the respondents.
July 29. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON. This is an appeal from a decree of. the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces, dated April 8, 1926, which reversed a decree of the District Judge of Hoshangabad dated September 30, 1924, and decreed the plaintiffs suit with costs.
The appeal is brought by Seth Motilal, the son of Seth Sobhagmal (who was the first defendant in the suit and is now dead), and Seth Lachmandas and Seth Manakchand, the second and third defendants in the suit.
The respondents are the assignees of the plaintiff, Mst. Jankibai, widow of Govindram Chaudhari. The plaintiff assigned all her interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the decree appealed against to the respondents, whose names by order of the Court dated October 7, 1927, were substituted for that of the plaintiff, as respondents in the appeal.
The material facts are as follows —
On July 9, 1914, Mst. Jankibai, the plaintiff, had agreed to buy from Seth Jiwandas and the latter had agreed to sell to the former a four annas and four pies share of mauza Raisalpur, including sir and khudkast lands, with cultivating rights in the sir, for Rs.46,100. Mst. Jankibai paid Rs.5000 as earnest money, but being unable to raise the balance of the purchase money, arranged with Seth Sobhagmal (defendant 1) that he should have the benefit of her contract with Jiwandas, pay the balance, take the sale-deed in his name, and convey to her the said share at any time within ten years on her paying him (Sobhagmal) Rs.41,100. On August 25, 1914, Seth Sobhagmal accordingly took a sale-deed from Jiwandas and paid him the balance of the purchase money.
On September 4, 1914, two agreements were executed, one by Seth Sobhagmal in favour of Jankibai, and the other by the latter in his favour, stating the arrangement already mentioned.
On March 18, 1918, Seth Sobhagmal mortgaged a four anna share to the defendants 2 and 3.
On October 9, 1919, Jankibai gave notice to Sobhagmal that she was prepared to pay him the price, and called upon him to carry out his contract with her, but he took no notice of it.
Consequently the plaintiff instituted the present suit against Seth Sobhagmal and his mortgagees (the second and third defendants), praying for a decree that the defendants should be ordered to execute a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff for the said share of the said village with cultivating rights in the sir land, after obtaining sanction under the Central Provinces Tenancy Act for the transfer of the sir lands on payment by her of the sum of Rs.41,100 and other sums that might be due under the agreement. The plaint contained other alternative reliefs, which it is not necessary to mention in detail at present.
At the trial many issues were raised ; most of them are not now
