Raj Kumar Tejendra Singh vs Dr. Sital Raj Mehta

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1988 Supreme(Raj) 511

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Farooq Hasan, J.
Raj Kumar Tejendra Singh and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Dr. Sital Raj Mehta - Respondent
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 88 of 1974.
Decided On : 22-04-1988

Headnote:
CONTRACT - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - SALE OF LAND - AMENDMENT OF WRITTEN STATEMENT - REJECTION - JUSTIFICATION - CONTRACT - COMPLETENESS - UNCERTAIN CONTRACT - ENFORCEABILITY - TIME - ESSENCE OF CONTRACT - DEFAULT CLAUSE - ABSENCE - SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - TIME NOT GENERALLY ESSENCE OF CONTRACT - SECTION 16, SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT - READINESS AND WILLINGNESS TO PERFORM CONTRACT - PROOF - SECTION 5(3), SECTION 15, SECTION 42, URBAN LAND (CEILING AND REGULATION) ACT, 1976 - APPLICABILITY - DECREE FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - VALIDITY - SECTION 23, CONTRACT ACT - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of a verbal contract entered into on July 27, 1968, through a property broker, with the defendants for the sale of their plot of land measuring 3,182 sq. yds. The defendants denied the alleged verbal agreement and admitted the payment of Rs. 20,000/- through a cheque issued by the plaintiff. They alleged that the amount was paid towards an incomplete agreement as all the terms and conditions were not settled between the parties. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed.
Finding of the Court:

1. The trial court was justified in rejecting the defendants' application for amendment of their written statement as the defendants wanted to set up a new case against the plaintiff and take away any vested right which had accrued to the plaintiff by lapse of time. 2. The contract between the parties was concluded on July 27, 1968, and was capable of being enforced against the defendants-appellants as all essential and basic terms for the sale of land were agreed between the parties on the date of the agreement. 3. Time was not the essence of the contract as there was no default clause in the receipt for non-fulfillment of the contract within time and the parties continued to come for finalization of the sale-deed after one or two months from the date of the receipt. 4. The plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as he had supplied a draft of the sale-deed to the defendants and earnestly tried to pursue the matter by requesting the defendants' advocate and the defendants to finalize the draft expeditiously. 5. The provisions of Section 5(3), Section 15, and Section 42 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 are not applicable to the present case and do not affect the validity of the decree for specific performance passed in favor of the plaintiff. 6. Section 23 of the Contract Act is not applicable as the decree for specific performance was passed before the commencement of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the defendants' application for amendment of their written statement. 2. Whether the contract between the parties was concluded and capable of being enforced against the defendants. 3. Whether time was the essence of the contract. 4. Whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. 5. Whether the provisions of Section 5(3), Section 15, and Section 42 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 are applicable to the present case and affect the validity of the decree for specific performance passed in favor of the plaintiff. 6. Whether Section 23 of the Contract Act is applicable to the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power to allow amendment of pleadings is to be exercised liberally unless such permission causes prejudice to the other side or takes away any vested right which has accrued to the other side by lapse of time. 2. For a contract for sale of land, a contract is required to be concluded by agreement between the parties on three basic things namely, price of land, area of land and time for completion. 3. Time is not generally the essence of the contract in the contract of sale of immovable property. 4. Under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff should plead and prove his ready and willingness before a decree for specific performance is granted. 5. The provisions of Section 5(3), Section 15, and Section 42 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 do not declare a decree for specific performance passed before the commencement of the Act to be void. 6. Section 23 of the Contract Act does not render a contract for sale of land entered earlier in point of time void.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

JUDGMENT

1. - Unfortunately, there are not infrequent instances where what should have been clear and certain by applying well established canons of statutory construction becomes befogged by the vegaries, if one may use a possibly strong word without disrespect, of justicial exposition divorced from these canons. The present appeal before me is such an instance by such a fog created by the defendants in the first appeal which arises out of a civil suit which has been decreed by the learned Addl District Judge No. 2. Jaipur City, Jaipur, in favour of the plaintiff-respondent with costs for specific performance of contract for sale of land measuring 3182 sq. yds. situated at Govind Marg, Jaipur and shown by yellow colour in the site plan (Ex. 1) annexed to the plaint.Factual matrix -

2. Dr. S.R. Mahta, the plaintiff-respondent, filed a suit for specific performance. The defendants appellants, Tejendra Singh, Digvijai Singh and Jaivendra Singh, had entered into a verbal contract on July 27, 1968, through Mahadevlal Jethani (PW-5), a property broker, with the plaintiff-respondent, agreeing to sell him their plot of land of joint ownership admeasuring 3,182 sq. vds as shown with yellow colour in the site plan (Ex-1) annexed to the plaint @ Rs. 44/- per sq. yd. In pursuance to the said agreement to sell, the plaintiff made part payment of Rs. 20,000/- through a crossed cheque dated July 27, 1968, and the said cheque was handed over to Mahadevlal Jethani, who was intermediate person in between the plaintiff-respondent and the defendants as a property broker. The said cheque is admitted to have been accepted by the defendants. According to the terms of the said agreement, the stamps and registration charges were to be borne by the plaintiff respondent and the defendants were to execute the sale-deed and then to deliver a vacant possession of the suit land to the plaintiff.

3. In his plaint, the plaintiff averred that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and accordingly, he handed over to the defendant a draft sale-deed of the land purchased by him and, that draft sale-deed was banded over by the defendants to Shri B.P Agrawal, Advocate, who though suggested some minor amendments in the draft sale-deed but the same was neither handed over to the plaintiff nor was executed on a stamp paper by the defendants. Thus, execution of the sale-deed was delayed by the defendants by false promises and assurances. Ultimately, the defendants expressed their unwillingness on October 31, 1968 to execute a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff and started negotiations for the sale of the plot in question to some other persons at a higher price though the plaintiff was and is ready to pay the balance amount of sale consideration to the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff prayed that the defendants may be directed to specifically perform the contract through Court and deliver the vacant possession of the land in dispute to the plaintiff. Rs. 1500/- were also claimed by the plaintiff as interest @ 6% p.a. on the ground that the defendants have been wrongfully utilising Rs. 20,000/- since July 27, 1968. The suit was filed on November 1, 1969.

4. The defendants filed a written statement and resisted the suit. They denied the alleged verbal agreement as was pleaded by the plaintiff. In their written statement, the defendants admitted the payment of Rs. 20,000/- through cheque issued by the plaintiff made part it. It was alleged that the amount was paid towards the agreement dated August 2, 1968 which was of course for the sale of the suit land but that was incomplete contract as all the terms and conditions were not settled between the parties and the negotiations were going on-draft sale deed was to be prepared at the instance of both the parties - no final shape to that sale-deed was given because there were differences between the parties in respect of the contents of the sale deed draft. In the written statement, it was admitte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1988 Supreme(Raj) 511

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCHFarooq Hasan, J.Raj Kumar Tejendra Singh and Ors. - AppellantVersusDr. Sital Raj Mehta - RespondentS.B. Civil First Appeal No. 88 of 1974.Decided On : 22-04-1988

Cases Referred (13)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Farooq Hasan, J.
Raj Kumar Tejendra Singh and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Dr. Sital Raj Mehta - Respondent
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 88 of 1974.
Decided On : 22-04-1988