Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.RAMASWAMY
United Pioneer Society Rept.by its Secretary - Appellant
Versus
Chand Bibi - Respondent
Decided On : 08-23-85
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - CONTRACT - URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976 (CEILING ACT) - SECTION 27 - AGREEMENT TO SELL LAND SUBJECT TO OBTAINING EXEMPTION - WHETHER VOID - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 (ACT 47 OF 1963) - SECTION 16(C) - PLEADING AND PROOF OF READINESS AND WILLINGNESS TO PERFORM CONTRACT - WHETHER MANDATORY - AMENDMENT OF PLAINT - ORDER 6 RULE 17 CPC - POWER OF COURT - LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The respondents contended that the agreement was void as it was in violation of the Ceiling Act, which prohibited the transfer of urban land without the permission of the competent authority. The appellants argued that the agreement was not void as it was subject to obtaining the necessary exemption from the Ceiling Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the agreement was not void as it was subject to obtaining the necessary exemption from the Ceiling Act. The court further held that the appellants were required to plead and prove that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, as required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The court found that the appellants had failed to do so and dismissed the suit.
Issues: 1. Whether the agreement to sell land was void as it was in violation of the Ceiling Act? 2. Whether the appellants were required to plead and prove that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract? 3. Whether the appellants had failed to plead and prove that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the agreement was not void as it was subject to obtaining the necessary exemption from the Ceiling Act. The court relied on the fact that Section 27(2) of the Ceiling Act gives a right to any person desiring to make a transfer under Section 27(1) to make an application in writing to the competent authority for permission to transfer the land. 2. The court held that the appellants were required to plead and prove that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, as required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The court relied on the fact that Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act mandates that a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance must aver and prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him. 3. The court found that the appellants had failed to plead and prove that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The court noted that the appellants had not pleaded in their plaint that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, and that they had not adduced any evidence to prove that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the suit.
( 1 ) THE suit of the unsuccessful plaintiffs/appellants for specific performance of the agreement, Ex. A-1 dated december 3, 1977, met with dismissal. Their claim is that the respondents contracted to sell 2,593 sq. yards at. the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. yard and received rs. 10,995/- on different dates through cheques. One of the covenants is that the respondents have to obtain exemption from the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, "the ceiling Act") but committed breach thereof. The appellants filed on December 16,1977 the petition under Ex. A-13 seeking permission on whrch the competent Authority had taken steps, but the respondents did not co-operate with them to grant exemption There fore they sought for a decree to direct the respondents to submit proper application for grant of exemption and on grant thereof, the sale deed is to be executed. The respondents 1 to 3 filed a joint written statement and Despondent no. 4 filed a separate written statement. Their main plea is that Ex A-1 agreement is a sham and nominal one never intended to be acted upon. The appellants assured them that they would get exemption from the Government and thereafter, the prices would be settled at the prevailing rates. Thereby it is not a concluding contract. Ex. A-1 is also inoperative and void since it is in violation of the provisions of the Ceiling Act. There is no consensus ad idem between the parties. The prices have been abnormally increased subsequently. The appellants awaited for three years without getting the sale-deed executed. There is no part of their obligation but of the appellants to approach the ceiling authorities and to obtain exemption but was not done. Thereby, they are disentitled to the relief of specific performance. Respondent No. 4 raised a special plea that on the date of her marriage, when "manjah Ceremony" was being celebrated, her brother brought a document and took her signature and she signed it without going through its contents. She is a medical student and after completion of her studies, she went to Iran and after return, she came to know on July 12, 1981 that the signature obtained was on the agreement; as such, she is not bound by the agreement. No consideration has been passed under the agreement, to her.
( 2 ) THE trial Court framed appropriate issues; on adduction of evidence and consideration thereof, it" held that the agreement is true, valid and for consideration; not a nominal document and is binding on the respondents. It has also held that there is no delay in getting the sale deed executed. However, it refused to grant the relief holding that the grant of exemption under Sec. 20 of the Ceiling Act is not an automatic one. It requires cumbersome procedure. The appellants did not aver in the plaint that they are ready and willing to perform their part of the contract as enjoined in section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), for short, "the Act". Their belated application for amendment of the plaint was also dismissed. It is inequitable to grant the relief, but decree for refund of earnest money was made.
( 3 ) SRI M B Rama Sarma, learned counsel for the appellants, hascontended that the trial Court, having negatived all the defences of the respondents, ought to have decreed the suit. The appellants have taken all the steps to get exemption under Section 20 of the Ceiling Act. Nothing more can be done except an order being passed by the Government provided the respondents co-openate with them. The relief has been sought for only due to their non-co-operation which would have been granted directing the respondents to secure- exemption and, thereafter, the sale deed would have got executed. The omission to plead the readiness and willingness on the part of the appellants is only due to the inadvertence of his Counterpart in the Court below. It is stated in Ex. A-2 suit notice of their readiness and willingness. Nacassary evidence in this regard has b
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
