IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Kanwar Vilas Nath and Ors. - Respondents
Second Appeal No. 311 OF 2017
Decided On : 16-07-2018
Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 61 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 34 - Rule 7 - Order 41 - Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 - Section 12 - Property in their favour at their costs - Amount earned out of suit properties towards mortgaged debt - Suit was filed by Respondent herein for Decree of Redemption in respect mortgaged properties and for directing present Appellant to re convey property in their favorite their costs by accepting mortgage debt due and payable - Along with Decree of Redemption and possession suit properties ancillary relief’s were also claimed of taking of accounts adjusting amount earned out of suit properties towards mortgaged debt etc – Held, Secondly even in absence of such substantial question of law being framed at time of admission of Second Appeal power of this Court to hear and decide Second Appeal on any other substantial question of law is not taken away - As by Honble Apex Court in ease Supra in paragraph of its Judgment that At hearing Appeal though cope of hearing is circumscribed by question so formulated by High Court at time of admission Appeal Respondent is at liberty to show that question formulated by High Court was not involved in case - In spite of substantial question of law determining scope of hearing of Second Appeal having been formulated by High Court its power to hear Appeal on any other substantial question of law not earlier formulated by its not taken away subject to twin conditions being satisfied High Court feels satisfied that case involves such question High Court records reasons for its such satisfaction - Emphasis Supplied Here in case on perusal of Judgment first Appellate Court this Court is more than convinced that this case involves substantial question of law as to whether Appeal should be remitted for fresh hearing Both parties were heard elaborately on this question and after being satisfied with reasons stated above this Court finds it necessary to remit Appeal for fresh hearing – Appeal allowed
1. Heard Mr. Anil Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Appellant-Union of India, and Mr. Iqbal Chagla, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. This Appeal takes an exception to the 'Judgment and Decree' dated 29th November 2016 passed by District Judge-4, Kalyan in Regular Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2016, which was preferred against the 'Judgment and Decree' dated 30th April 2012 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kalyan in Special Civil Suit No. 99 of 2006.
3. The said Suit was filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein for the 'Decree of Redemption' in respect of the mortgaged properties and for directing the present Appellant to re-convey the said property in their favour, at their costs, by accepting the mortgage debt due and payable. Along with the 'Decree of Redemption' and possession of the suit properties, the ancillary relief’s were also claimed of taking of accounts, adjusting the amount earned out of the suit properties towards mortgaged debt etc.
4. The suit properties are, totally seven in number, situate at Ambernath, Kalyan, consisting of the land together with the tenements, dwelling houses and buildings standing thereon and they are described in detail in paragraph Nos.1 to 5 of the plaint. These properties were left behind by its erstwhile owner Ahmed Abdul Karim Brothers, when, after the partition, he left for Pakistan along with his family members. The Government of India has, by notification dated 10th March 1955, under Section 12(1) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, acquired these evacuee properties and agreed to sell the same to late Rajnath, who has, along with his family, migrated to India during the partition. The properties were agreed to be sold for a consideration of Rs.50,11,000/-. On the date of the Agreement dated 14th August 1957, late Rajnath has paid the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as and by way of earnest money. The balance amount of Rs.48,11,000/- was to be paid as per the time-schedule given in Clause No.3 of the 'Agreement'. Clause No.5 of the 'Agreement' further provided that, upon payment of Rs.28,00,000/-, the Vendor, i.e. the Government of India, would execute a 'Deed of Conveyance' in favour of the purchaser-late Rajnath and immediately after execution of the said 'Conveyance', Rajnath shall, at his own costs, execute in favour of the Government of India an 'English Mortgage' of the said properties to secure the payment of the unpaid installments of the purchase price, with interest thereon. Clause No.10 of the 'Agreement' further provided that, the 'Deed of Conveyance' shall be a 'grant' for the purposes of the Government Grants Act, 1895.
5. It is undisputed that, in the arbitration between Ambernath Mills Corporation and the Custodian of evacuee properties, the Arbitrator had decided the further sum of Rs.18,00,000/-, which was to be payable by the said Ambernath Mills Corporation. This amount was agreed to be paid by late Rajnath to the Government of India and it was also agreed that, it would be considered as part payment of the consideration towards purchase of the said properties. Thus, total amount payable towards the consideration was Rs.48,11,000/-.
6. A 'Supplemental Deed' to the said 'Agreement' dated 14th August 1957 came to be entered into between the parties on 29th April 1959, by which the period for payment of remaining consideration amount was varied. Under this 'Supplemental Deed', the Government of India has acknowledged receipt of Rs.20,00,000/- from late Rajnath and it was agreed that the balance amount of Rs.48,11,000/- was to be paid in seven equal installments. Except for the variation in the schedule for payment of the remaining amount, all the terms and conditions of the earlier 'Agreement' dated 14th August 1957 remained unchanged.
7. Thereafter, on 6th April, 1960, the second 'Supplemental Deed' to the principal 'Agreement' dated 14th August 1957 was executed, by which it was inter alia pro
B.V. Nagesh and Anr. Vs. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy
Madhukar and Ors. Vs. Sangram and Ors.
Rimmalapudi Subba Rao Vs. Noony Veeraju
Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by LRs.
Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. Vs. Century Spg. And Mfg. Co. Ltd.
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.