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

1975 Supreme(Del) 55

High Court Of Delhi
LACHMAN DASS - Appellant
Versus
HAKIM RAM KRISHAN - Respondent
L.P.A. 45 of 1971
Decided On : 03/21/1975

Advocates Appeared:
C.L.CHAUDHRY, D.D.Chawla, J.S.Arora

An agreement between two or more persons not to bid against each other at an auction is not illegal or against public policy.

Headnote:

CONTRACT - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - AGREEMENT NOT TO BID AT AUCTION - VALIDITY - PUBLIC POLICY - AUCTION BY COMPETENT OFFICER - SITTING ALLOTTEES - AGREEMENT BETWEEN SITTING ALLOTTEES NOT TO BID AGAINST EACH OTHER - VALIDITY - PUBLIC POLICY.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged contract of sale of a shop. The defendants, who were the bidders, entered into an agreement with the plaintiffs that they would not purchase the property if sold by the Competent Officer to the defendants together with Shri Sohan Singh. After the sale was confirmed in favor of the defendants and Shri Sohan Singh, the defendants refused to transfer the shop to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court decreed the plaintiffs' suit and ordered the defendants to execute a conveyance deed in favor of the plaintiffs in respect of the shop. The lower appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the agreement was void as it was opposed to public policy. The High Court restored the trial court's decree, holding that the agreement was not opposed to public policy.

Issues: 1. Whether the agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants was for consideration? 2. Whether the agreement was valid and enforceable in law?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants was for consideration, namely, the plaintiffs' promise not to bid at the auction before the Competent Officer among the sitting allottees. 2. The agreement was not opposed to public policy. The object of the agreement was not to defraud the Government of the maximum bid that the property could have fetched in the auction inter-se the sitting allottes. The agreement was entered into after the Competent Officer had ascertained the market value of the property at Rs. 60,250.00 and had restricted the auction amongst the sitting allottees. The agreement did not increase the market value of the property. The Competent Officer was within his powers to sell the property jointly to the sitting allottees, who had agreed that their bid may be considered as a joint one.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the defendants' appeal and restored the trial court's decree.

S. S. CHADHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal on certificate, has arisen from the judgment dated November 6, 1970, of a learned single Judge of this Court in a Regular Second Appeal.

( 2 ) WE can do no better than to state the facts which arc not disputed, as brought out in the judgment of the learned single Judge. The facts are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged contract of sale of shop No. 2562 Gali No- 6, Beadonpura, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. It was alleged that the plaintiffs are in possession of shop No. 2562 which is a part of the property known as No. 2562-73 (New No. XVI 2593-2606 ). This whole property was accomposite property and was auctioned by the 1954, Tea. nercent of the sale price was deposited Toy the plaintiffs and the defendants who were the bidders. However, the sale was not contrimed and the property was open to public and the maximum bid of Rs. 60,250. 00 was given. The auction was then to be continued only amongst the sitting allottees and for this purpose auction was postponed to the next day. This is clear from the proceedings before the Competent Officer. Exhibit P-2 on the file. Before that the defendants-respondents entered into an agreement E. \. P-l in which it was provided that the plaintiffs who were in occupation of shop No. 2562 were not interested in the auction of the aforesaid full property by the Competent Officer, Delhi, and that they will not purchase the property if sold by the Competent Officer to the defendants together with Shri Sohan Singh. It was also agreed that after the sale as and when completed by the Competent Officer in favour of the defendants alongwith Shri Sohan Singh, they would transfer to the plaintiffs without payment of any consideration shop No. 2562 and that the defendants shall get the sale deed registered in the name of the plaintiffs. It was also agreed that the plaintiffs will withdraw from the auction of the property and as such will not bid. Later on auction was sanctioned in favour of the defendants and Shri Sohan Singh for Rs. 60,250. 00 The sale certificate was issued in their favour on 5-8-1955. The defendants having refused to carry out their promise of transferring the shop in the name of the plaintiffs, the letter filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement Exhibit P-l. and prayed for a decree to execute the sale deed in their favour. The defendants controverted the allegations. Various pleas were raised and on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :-- " (1) Is the suit within time ? 0. P. P. (2) Whether the plaint has been properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ? 0. P. P. (3) Whether the defendants agreed to convey the shop in suit to the plaintiffs without consideration. If so, is the said agreement for consideration and is valid and cnforceable in law ? 0. P. P. (4) Whether the agreement of issue No. 3 was not entered into by proper parties and was it entered into by the defendants under coercion and threat, and if so, what is its effect? 0. P. D. (5) Whether the plantiffs are in lawful possession of the shop in suit? If not, how can they maintain the suit ? 0. P. D. (6) Is the suit had for non-joinder of the parties? (7) Relief. "

( 3 ) THE trial court held under issue No. 1 that the suit was within lime. On issue No. 2, the trial court found that the suit was valued properly for the purpose of court-fee though for the purpose of jurisdiction the court held that the suit for jurisdictional value would be Rs. 3,250. 00. On issues 3 and 4 it was found that the agreement was for consideration and it was legal and binding on the parties. Issue No. 5 was held in favour of the plaintiffs. On issue No. 6 it was held that as Shri Sohan Singh was not party to the agreement Ex. P-1. he cannot be made a party to the suit though the decree could be passed in respect of the parties actually before the court. Consequently, the trial court decreed the plai














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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