Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit vs Ramesh Chander

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(SC) 992

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. SINGHVI & ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.
Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit (Regd.) ..Appellant(s)
Versus
Ramesh Chander & Others ..Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.8982 OF 2010
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.1518 of 2008)
Decided on : October 19, 2010

Headnote:Specific Relief Act, 1963-Section 16 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Order II, Rule 2-Limitation Act 1963-Section 14 r/w Article 54-Specific performance of contract-If alleged statutory bar referred to by appellant stood in its ways to file a suit for Specific Performance, same would also be a bar to suit which it had filed claiming declaration of title and injunction-Appellant should not be allowed to sue on that cause of action which he omitted to include when he filed his suit-Bar of Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C. attracted in instant case. (Paras 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 39 and 40)
       (1964) 5 SCR 836; (1995) Suppl. (3) SCC 17-Distinguished.
       AIR 1984 Guj.145-Approved.
       Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Order VI, Rule 17-Amendment of plaint-Inclusion of plea of Specific Performance by way of amendment virtually alters character of suit - Such amendment cannot relate back to date of filing suit to cure defect of limitation. (Paras 36 and 37)
       (2001) 6 SCC 163-Relied on.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Here are the key points derived from the provided legal document:

The appellant, a cooperative society registered under the relevant state act, entered into an oral agreement for the sale of land with the first respondent and others, with possession handed over and consideration paid (!) .
The land in question was subject to various statutory schemes, including land ceiling and acquisition laws, which impacted the rights and proceedings related to the land (!) (!) .
The first respondent publicly asserted ownership and possession of the land, claiming that the sale agreement was canceled and that the appellant's rights over the land were nullified (!) .
The appellant filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction, which was ultimately dismissed on the grounds that the suit did not include the claim for specific performance initially and that the inclusion of such a claim via amendment was barred by limitation and procedural rules (!) (!) (!) .
The appellant attempted to amend the suit to include a claim for specific performance after a significant delay, but the court held that such an amendment could not relate back to the original filing date and was barred by the limitation period (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the omission to include the specific performance claim at the outset resulted in relinquishment of that cause of action, and subsequent amendments could not revive it (!) .
The decision reinforced that relief for specific performance is discretionary and that delay and procedural bars prevent its grant in this case (!) (!) .
The legal principles discussed include that amendments which alter the character of the suit cannot relate back to the original filing date, and that procedural and limitation statutes serve to uphold public policy and fairness (!) (!) (!) .
Overall, the courts dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower courts' rulings, and clarified that the appellant's failure to include the specific performance claim at the appropriate time barred the remedy.

JUDGMENT

GANGULY, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant, Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Niraman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore (hereinafter referred to as `the appellant'), was constituted and registered under the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Society Act, 1960 on 26.5.1970, for the purpose of providing residential plots to the employees of the forest department of Madhya Pradesh Government.

3. On 28.3.1974, three farmers, namely Ramesh Chander (hereinafter referred to as `the first respondent'), Mahavir Singh and Chunni Lal, entered into an oral agreement with the appellant to sell their respective land measuring 2.039 hectares bearing khasra No. 203/2, 1.019 hectares bearing khasra No. 203/1 and 1.602 hectares bearing khasra No. 204/1, situated at village Chitawad tehsil and district Indore, to the appellant at Rs.2 lacs per hectare. On 25.1.1975, all the three farmers jointly received Rs.2000/- as earnest money as per the agreement dated 28.3.1974 and delivered possession of the said land to the appellant. The agreement to sell was executed and signed by all three farmers on 31.3.1976. The present dispute only concerns Ramesh Chander, i.e. the first respondent.

4. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter the Ceiling Act) was passed by the Central Government and enforced by the Government of Madhya Pradesh (MP) on 9.9.1976. The first respondent filed details of the total vacant land possessed by him before the competent authority under the Ceiling Act on 24.12.1979 and also filed an exemption application under Section 20 of the Ceiling Act, in which he specified that land bearing khasra No. 203/2 was sold to the appellant.

5. The first respondent also submitted his affidavit to the appellant on 23.7.1982 that he had sold his agricultural land bearing khasra No. 203/2 to the appellant for consideration and that possession of the same had been handed over. Full payment of the sale consideration amounting to Rs.3,20,000/- was made to the first respondent on 28.8.1984.

6. On 26.4.1985, the Indore Development Authority declared a Scheme over including the disputed land. Accordingly, the Government of M.P. issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with respect to the said land. On 17.6.1985, the first respondent filed an application to the District Collector, Indore stating that he had sold the disputed land to the appellant and possession of the same had been handed over to the appellant, and that the first respondent did not have any right regarding the acquisition of the said land or to get compensation for the same. All proceedings regarding acquisition were to be referred to the appellant and he prayed that the said land be exempted from acquisition.

7. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act was published on 11.6.1986.

8. The first respondent had filed another affidavit dated 16.12.1986 stating that the appellant was in possession of the land in question.

9. On 5.1.1987, the appellant filed a writ petition (No.39/1987) along with the first respondent in the High Court, for quashing the acquisition of the disputed land. The High Court issued an ad-interim injunction on 15.1.1987 staying further proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer.

10. The first respondent, on 3.2.1991, issued a public notice in a local daily, called Dainik Bhaskar, that he is the owner and in possession of the disputed land, and any action taken by the appellant over such land would not affect the rights of ownership and possession of the first respondent over the land. He also stated that the agreement to sell and Power of Attorney in favour of the appellant stood cancelled. Immediately, thereafter, the appellant filed a suit on 11.2.1991 (COS No. 19A/1990) for declaration of ownership of the appellant Society in suit land and for permanent injunction in the court of 3rd Civil Judge, Class II, Indore. The suit was subsequently transferred to the 7th Civil Judge, Class II,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document