SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Bom) 1744

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
(P ANAJI BENCH)
A.P. DESHP ANDE & N.A. BRITTO, JJ.
Mr. Guna Krishna Gauns & Anr. - Appellant
Vs.
Mr. Antonio Joao Braganza @ Antush Braganza & Ors. - Respondent
First Appeal No.189 of 2005 WITH Cross-Objections No.5 of 2006
Decided On: 15th December, 2008.

Advocates appeared:
Mr. R.G. RAMANI, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. F.E. NORONHA, Advocate for Respondents No.2, 6, 7 & 8.
Mr. M.S. SONAK, Advocate for the Cross Objectors/Respondents No.3 & 4.

Headnote:Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 10 - Contract Act, 1872, Sections 37 and 38 - Declaratory suit - Whether declaratory suit without seeking possession is maintainable - Further validity of sale made by Attorney - Held - Declaratory suit without seeking possession is invalid - As regards amount of sale by attorney tender of amount without sending cheque for amount would not be treated as proper tender - Appeal partly allowed.

       Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Suit for declaration - Maintainability - Would not be reparable without retrieval of ownership of property consistent to the sale-deed. - A claim is said to be consequential only when it cannot be claimed in the absence of a claim for declaration. Otherwise it would lead to multiplicity of litigation for the declaratory suit will have to be followed up with an ejectment action for recovery of possession. It is well settled law that a suit for merely declaration when consequential relief which is available and which is not sought for, is not maintainable. Failure to ask for relief of possession undoubtedly bars the discretion of the Court in granted the decree for declaration. The Court has held that merely because the plaint says in the prayer such other relief be granted to the plaintiff it does not mean that without a specific plea for possession and disregarding the bar under Section 42 (now Section 34, proviso) of the said Act, the suit would be decreed even with reference to the portions of which the plaintiff has been in possession. In the absence of specific prayer for the recovery of possession of the property sold by the said sale deeds to the defendants, the suit for declaratory relief filed by the plaintiffs was clearly not maintainable and in this view of the matter also, the dismissal of the suit for main relief could not be faulted.

       Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Suit for declaration of title of right - Plaintiff filed a suit for declaring the sale deeds null and void on ground that power-of-attorney in question merely authorised defendant No. 1 to develop suit property and not to sell - It was alleged that defendant No. 1 committing fraud by replacing pages of power-of-attorney and also pages of the said agreement - Plaintiff found unable to prove its case and therefore trial Court dismissed suit with costs - Appeal filed against it - Partly allowed and direction given to pay sale price of suit property of Rs. 5,81,330 to plaintiff with interest at rate of 6% from date of notice till payment.

       Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 34 - Contract Act, 1872, Section 38 - Tender - Instructions afforded to litigants to endure sum questionable to complainants with 6% interest from 4.11.1995 defrayal. - The defendant No. 1 called upon the plaintiffs to collect and encash the cheque within 7 days and the plaintiffs had remained silent to it. Nothing had prevented the defendant No. 1 to send the said as amount, which according to defendant No. 1 was due to the plaintiffs, by cheque and only in that case that there would have been a tender of payment. Calling upon the plaintiffs to come and collect and encash the cheque, in Court’s view, would not amount to tender or offer of payment of the amount due to the plaintiff. That was an imperfect offer. It may be noted that all persons who make a tender do so for the purpose of extinguishing a debt. If that be so, the defendant No. 1 ought to have sent the cheque along with the letter rather than call upon the plaintiffs to come and collect the cheque.

N.A. BRITTO, J.:-

The appellants herein are the plaintiffs, and, shall hereinafter be referred to as such, whose suit for declaration and other consequential reliefs has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment/order dated 30/03/2005, and, aggrieved by the said judgment/order the present appeal has been filed. In order to dispose of the same, some facts are required to be stated.

2. The plaintiffs were the owners of a property known as Odlem Bhat admeasuring 22474 sq. mts. surveyed under nos.52/3 and 51/3 of village Curca in which there were some mundkarial houses. On or about 24/12/1992, the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 executed a deed styled as agreement of sale and the plaintiffs also executed in favour of defendant no. 1, an irrevocable general power of attorney. In terms of the said agreement of sale, the plaintiffs agreed to sell the suit property for an amount of Rs.14 lacs and received a sum of Rs.3 lacs and the balance was payable on future dates i.e. Rs.2 lacs on 30/04/1993, Rs.2 lacs on 30/07/1993, Rs.6 lacs on 31/12/1993 and Rs.1 lac on completion of development work. It was further stipulated that on receipt of such payment conveyance of the suit property or part thereof would be executed by the plaintiffs in favour of defendant no.1 or his nominee. Clause 4 stipulated that vacant possession of the suit property was handed over to defendant no.1 for the purpose of development and acknowledged that an irrevocable power of attorney was executed for the purpose of development works and to accept the bookings. The parties agreed that defendant no.1 would be entitled to specific performance of the agreement. The irrevocable general power of attorney contained several clauses and amongst them clause 12 authorised the defendant no.1 to enter into agreement or agreements of sale of the said property or parts thereof with any prospective purchaser and to accept consideration towards the same from them. Clause 5 authorised defendant no.1 to attend before any Registrar, Sub-registrar or Dy. Registrar of Assurances and to execute and present for registration and admit execution by the plaintiffs of any agreement, deed, conveyance, transfer, assignment, assurances, releases, indemnity or other instrument or writing the registration of which is compulsory and generally to do all things necessary or expedient for registering the said deed, instruments and writings or any of them as fully and effectually as the plaintiffs themselves would have done.

3. The plaintiffs inspite of the said agreement and irrevocable power of attorney having been executed in favour of defendant no.1, executed 5 deeds of sale in favour of the mundkars, the last on 21/12/1993 and also accepted sale price in respect of another three sale deeds made under the relevant provisions of the Mundkar Act, all the three sales having taken place on 30/11/1993. The defendant no.1 also executed either in favour of defendant no.2 or the remaining private defendants about 10 sale deeds, the last having been executed on or about 27/01/1995. After that, the plaintiffs by public notices dated 29th and 30th April, 1995 revoked the irrevocable power of attorney. Thereafter, on or about 4/11/1995 the defendant no.1 wrote a letter to the plaintiffs alleging that the plaintiffs had sold about 8259 sq. mts. fraudulently and without the knowledge of defendant no.1. It was also alleged that the installments could not be paid as per the agreement for sale on account of failure of the plaintiffs to produce title documents. It was further stated that the defendant no.1 had agreed to sell about 14,215 sq. mts. at the agreed rate of Rs.62/- per sq. mt. which worked out to Rs.8,81,330/- and as the amount of Rs.3 lacs was paid to the plaintiffs under the agreement dated 24/02/1992 the defendant no.1 owed to the plaintiffs only a sum of Rs.5,81,330/- which the plaintiffs were called upon to collect within a period of 7 days from the receipt of the letter without prejudice





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top