The Court held that no permission was required from the Ceiling Department and the vendors had not taken any steps to obtain such permission. The Court also noted that the respondents had not taken any action to enforce the agreement for a period of twelve years. Based on these findings, the Court set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts and dismissed the suit filed by the respondents.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. The defendant has filed the present appeal impugning the judgment of the High Court,¹[High Court of Judicature at Allahabad] whereby the Second Appeal,²[Second Appeal No. 96 of 2010] filed by the appellant herein was dismissed.

2. The suit,³[O.S. No.327 of 1999] filed by the respondents for specific performance of agreement to sell was decreed by the Trial Court,⁴[Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad] vide judgment dated 09.04.2007. The order was upheld in First Appeal and the Second Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant purchased House Nos. 259 and 260 from the owners thereof vide registered sale deed dated 06.07.1999. Thereafter, the respondents filed a civil suit in July 1999, praying for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 24.09.1986 executed by the vendors-defendants No. 1 to 4, in favour of the respondents and challenging the sale deed dated 06.07.1999 executed in favour of the appellant. In terms of the agreement to sell allegedly executed by the vendors in favour of the respondents, three properties bearing House Nos. 258, 259 and 260, situated at Sadar Bazar, Allahabad were agreed to be sold to the respondents for a total sale consideration of Rs.55,000/-. Earnest money of Rs.5,000/- was paid. It was agreed that the sale deed will be registered after getting permission from the Ceiling Department. The vendee was to be informed by the vendors after getting permission from the Ceiling Department. Six months’ time was granted for getting the sale deed registered on payment of balance sale consideration after information of permission is given. The contention is that no permission as such was required for getting the sale deed registered from the Ceiling Department and in fact the vendors had never applied for that. As the vendee, namely, Mewa Lal (predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) had failed to get the sale deed registered in more than twelve years or take any action against the vendor to comply with the terms of agreement, the vendors sold House Nos. 259 and 260 to the appellant vide registered sale deed dated 06.07.1999. The appellant claimed he was tenant in the aforesaid two houses.

4. He further submitted that no permission was required from the Ceiling Department. None was taken by the vendor even at the time of getting the sale deed registered in favour of the appellant after the family division. To ensure title of the vendor, the appellant had even got the title verification of the property for the last twelve years through his counsel. Immediately after the sale deed for House Nos. 259 and 260 was registered in favour of the appellant, the successors-in-interest of the vendee- late Mewa Lal, filed a civil suit seeking enforcement of agreement to sell dated 24.09.1986 and challenging the sale deed dated 06.07.1999 regarding House Nos. 259 and 260 in favour of the appellant. He further submitted that draft sale deed was prepared with reference to House No. 258 in favour of Ramesh Kumar son of late Mewa Lal on 8.7.1999, however the same was not registered. He submitted that certificate of title verification of the property in dispute by the counsel was wrongly rejected by the courts below on the plea taken by him regarding he being the bona fide purchaser of the property. Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate who had conducted the title verification, appeared as DW-3. In fact, House Nos. 259 and 260 were sold to the appellant because he was tenant in those houses. The respondents had not been able to prove their possession in those two houses. Finally after decreeing the suit, the Trial Court held that there would be relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondents and the appellant. He further submitted that there was huge delay in filing the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 24.09.1986 as the same was filed in July 1999, especially when no permission was required from the Ceiling Department and