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

1961 Supreme(Pat) 75

PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and N.L.Untwalia JJ.
Jamahir Sao
Versus
Satrughna Sonar
Appeal From Appellate Decree No. 253 of 1957 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 01, 1961

A contract for sale of land containing a clause for reconveyance is a revocable contract and cannot be specifically enforced.

Headnote:

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - CONTRACT OF SALE - REVOCABLE CONTRACT - SECTION 21(D) OF THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT - WHETHER A CONTRACT FOR SALE OF LAND CONTAINING A CLAUSE FOR RECONVEYANCE IS A REVOCABLE CONTRACT - HELD, YES.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs sued for specific performance of a contract for sale of land. The defendants contended that there was a clause for reconveyance in the contract and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a decree for specific performance. The trial court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a decree for specific performance, but they were entitled to a refund of the amount paid to the defendants. The lower appellate court reversed the decree of the trial court and granted the plaintiffs a decree for specific performance.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the contract for sale of land was a revocable contract and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a decree for specific performance. The court relied on Section 21(d) of the Specific Relief Act, which states that a contract which is in its nature revocable cannot be specifically enforced.

Issues: Whether a contract for sale of land containing a clause for reconveyance is a revocable contract.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the contract for sale of land was a revocable contract because it gave the defendants an option to get reconveyance of the properties at any time within the period of three years from the date of the agreement, on repayment of consideration.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree of the lower appellate court. The court restored the decree of the trial court, which had dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for specific performance.

Judgment

1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiffs alleged that on the 3rd October, 1953, there was an agreement executed by the defendants In favour of the plaintiffs for sale of the disputed lands to the plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 2999/-. It was alleged that a sum of Rs. 500.00 wag Paid oh the date of the agreement and the deed! of sale was to be executed by the defendants within six months from the date of the agreement. It was also agreed between the parties that the plaintiff would pay a sum of Rs. 648/- in cash on the date the sale was registered, and! the rest of the consideration was to be paid by the plaintiffs towards the liquidation of a previous usufructuary mortgage with regard to the disputed lands.

The plaintiffs brought the suit for specific performance of the contract. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that there was a clause for reconveyance in the contract of sale and the defendants had also agreed to repay the sum of Rs. 500.00 to the plaintiffs. The defendants also asserted that the plaintiffs had not redeem the usufructuary mortgage and in view of the clause for reconveyance the plaintiffs were not entitled to a decree for specific performance of the contract of sale. Upon these rival contentions of the parties the learned Munsif held that the laintiffs were not entitled to a decree for specific performance, but they were entitled to a refund of the amount of Rs. 500.00 given to the defendants.

The learned Munsif accordingly granted a decree to the plaintiffs for recovery of a sum of Rs. 500.00 with proportionate costs. The plaintiffs took the matter in appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Dhanbad, who reversed the decree of the learned Munsif and granted the plaintiffs a decree for specific performance of the contract of sale of the disputed properties. The view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge was that the clause for reconveyance in the contract of sale was not really an agreement to re-sell but it was in the nature of "a contract to make a contract" and, therefore, not enforceable in law.

2. In support of this appeal learned Counsel for the defendant appellants made the submission that the view taken by the lower appellate court is erroneous and on a proper construction of the contract for sale dated the 3rd October, 1953, it ought to be held that there was a completed contract for re-sale of the property within a period of three years from the 3rd October, 1953, and the learned Subordinate Judge was erroneous in holding that there was "a contract to make a contract". In our opinion the argument put forward by learned counsel for the appellants is well founded and must be accepted as correct. The agreement dated the 3rd October, 1953, which is exhibit 2, has been officially translated, and the relevant portion of this document is to the following effect:-

-

"Thig deed of agreement is executed to the following effect that we, having purchased the lands etc. recorded under Khata No. 10 situate in mauza Bastakola from Kali Charan Das under a registered Khas Kobala deed No. 1765 of 1933 A.D. of the Dhanbad Sub-Registry Office have been possessing and occupying the same and out of the same we proposed to sell the lands etc. specified in the schedule below for procuring money as we stood in the need of money for carrying on our business whereupon you agreed to purchase the said entire lands for Rs. 2999/- (Rupees two thousand nine hundred and ninetynine) and we made this agreement to sell you (the said lands) for the said consideration and out of the entire consideration as per agreement we have received from you an advance of Rs. 500.00 (Rupees five hundred) and we having executed this agreement In your favour agree and stipulate that for the purpose of selling the lands etc. specified in the schedule to you, we shall execute and get registered a KoBala in your favour within six months from this day and at that time we shall take the remaining amount of considera












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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