Back
2022 Supreme(Chh) 122
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Narendra Kumar Vyas, J.
Abbas Bhai – Petitioner
Versus
Pushpa Kumari & Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No. 48 of 1999
Decided On : 23-03-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate.
Headnote:
FIRST APPEAL - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT - POWER OF ATTORNEY - UNDUE INFLUENCE - RULER'S PROPERTY - IN-ALIENABILITY - READINESS AND WILLINGNESS TO PERFORM CONTRACT - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, SECTION 16(C).
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale of property, alleging that the defendants, who were the owners of the property, had entered into an agreement to sell the property to him through a duly constituted power of attorney holder. The defendants admitted the agreement but claimed that the power of attorney was obtained under undue influence and coercion, and that the property was inalienable as it was a Ruler's property. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the power of attorney was indeed obtained under undue influence and that the property was inalienable.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the trial court's findings. It held that the evidence on record clearly established that the power of attorney was obtained under undue influence, and that the property was indeed a Ruler's property and was inalienable. The Court also held that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, as he had stopped payment of the agreed purchase price due to a dispute.
Issues: 1. Whether the power of attorney was obtained under undue influence? 2. Whether the property was a Ruler's property and was inalienable? 3. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the evidence on record clearly established that the power of attorney was obtained under undue influence. It noted that the defendant who had executed the power of attorney was in a position of dominance over the other defendants, and that he had used this position to obtain an unfair advantage over them. 2. The Court held that the property was indeed a Ruler's property and was inalienable. It noted that the property had been vested in the Ruler of Bastar by the Government of India, and that it was to be passed on to the next Ruler in accordance with the terms of an agreement between the Ruler and the Government of India. 3. The Court held that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It noted that the plaintiff had stopped payment of the agreed purchase price due to a dispute, and that he had not taken any steps to resolve the dispute.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and upheld the trial court's dismissal of the suit.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant First Appeal has been filed by the appellant/ plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.11.1998 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Civil Suit No. 8A/1993, whereby the suit preferred by the appellant/ plaintiff has been dismissed.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal, in short are that the plaintiff had filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract on 03.02.1984 contending that defendants No. 1 to 4 are the owners of the property described in the plaint bearing sheet No. 60, plot No. 106, 86/2 situated in the city of Jagdalpur, Tahsil Jagdalpur, and defendant No. 5 was duly registered general power of attorney holder of respondents No. 1 to 4. By this power of attorney dated 17.08.1983, defendant No. 5 has been authorized to negotiate and enter into contract of sale of immovable properties, land, houses, vacant site, building site, as per details mentioned in the power of attorney itself. It has also been pleaded in the plaint that in exercise of power and authority vested in the defendant no. 5 had entered into an agreement for sale of property as mentioned in schedule of the property for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 20.08.1983. As per the agreement, the plaintiff had paid Rs. 25,000/- in cash as earnest money for the suit land to the agent of the defendants No. 1,2,3 and 4 Vidyasagar Tiwari defendant no. 5 and for the balance amount of Rs. 75,000/- the plaintiff paid five postdated cheques dated 09.11.1983, 05.11.1983, 05.12.1983, 20.12.1983 and 05.01.1984 for Rs. 15,000/- each to defendant No.1. It has been contended that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and before Dussehra festival, in the year 1983, he went to the defendant No. 2 then he asked him to stop payment issued in favour of defendant No.1 as there was some family dispute arisen between defendants No.1 to 4. Since there was no communication with regard to performance of the contract by the defendant, plaintiff sent a legal notice on 15.10.1983 with regard to performance of contract by the parties.
3. It has been contended in the plaint that defendant No.2 has given the reply denying the execution of agreement and also with regard to execution of power of attorney in favour of defendant no. 5. He also denied the right and title of other defendants and claimed himself to be exclusive owner of the suit land. It has been further contended that on 27.08.1983 power of attorney purported to have been executed by defendant No.2 and was revoked by him by publication in Dandakaranya Samachar newspaper. It has been further pleaded that deed of revocation dated 27.08.1983 even if, it is valid, does not affect in any manner, the agreement dated 20.08.1983 as the agreement was executed when the power of attorney was in existence, therefore, they are bound to perform the said contract.
4. The plaintiff has amended the plaint and certain pleading were made which are mainly by;- enforcement of 26 amendment of the Constitution of India in 1971 introducing the Article 363(1) all rights, privileges and status granted under the Constitution of all the “Rulers” including the defendant No. 2 have been abolished and the Rulers are now at par with all other citizens of India without any additional privileges or status granted under the Constitution of India or any covenant or agreement entered into by them before the commencement of the Constitution of India. Thus the defendant No. 2 hold the suit property without any restriction and the property which is in his exclusive or joint with other defendants could be sold by him. On above factual matrix the plaintiff has prayed for directing the defendants to perform their part of contract as per agreement dated 20.08.1983 and also grant necessary full possession of the suit property.
5. Defendant No. 1,3 to 5 have filed their joint written statement. The defendant no. 1,3
