1983 Supreme(P&H) 332

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
J.M.Tandon, J.
Chater Bhuj Goel
Versus
Gurpreet Singh
First Appeal No. 29 of 1982,
Decided On : AUGUST 5, 1983

The Court held that the trial Court has wrongly exercised the discretion against the appellant on the ground that the prices of the real estate have increased during the pendency of the suit. The assumed increase in the prices of real estate during the pendency of the suit being irrelevant the appellant is entitled to a decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated June 4, 1979.

Headnote:

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - SALE AGREEMENT - HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT, 1956 - SECTION 8 - COURT PERMISSION - BREACH OF AGREEMENT - O.2, R.2, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - O.32, R.3, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM - SECTION 20, SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT - DISCRETION OF COURT - BENEFIT OF MINOR - INCREASE IN PRICES OF REAL ESTATE - RELEVANCE.

Fact of the Case:

On December 18, 1978, Col. Sukhdev Singh, as a natural guardian of the minor, entered into an agreement with C.B. Goel appellant for the sale of the house for Rs. 2,85,000. The appellant purchased a bank draft for Rs. 1,35,000 in the name of Gurpreet Singh (minor) through his father Col. Sukhdev Singh from the State Bank of Patiala, Chandigarh. Col. Sukhdev Singh did not visit Chandigarh on July 10, 1979, to take vacant possession of the entire house. On July 16, 1979, Col. Sukhdev Singh visited Chandigarh and met the appellant at the latter's house at 9 a.m. He enquired from the appellant if he had arranged for the money to be paid. The appellant showed him the bank draft of Rs. 1,35,000 which he had already purchased. Col. Sukhdev Singh asked him to visit the Courts in Sector 17, Chandigarh, at 3 p.m. He went to the Courts in Sector 17, Chandigarh, but Col. Sukhdev Singh could not be located. On October 3, 1980, the appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the sale agreement dated June 4, 1979, and for possession of the same and in the alternative for recovery of Rupees 2,50,000 along with future interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

Finding of the Court:

1. The breach of the agreement had taken place on the part of the guardian of the minor and not on the part of the appellant. 2. The suit for specific performance is not barred by the provisions of O.2, R.2, Civil P.C. 3. The agreement dated June 4, 1979, remained intact and the statements made by the parties on February 4, 1980, did not have the effect of rescission thereof. 4. The contract between the parties does not stand frustrated having become impossible of performance because the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereafter the Act) has not granted permission to the respondent to sell the house. 5. The omission to secure an order of the Court in terms of O.32, R.3, Civil P.C. for the appointment of Col. Sukhdev Singh as the guardian of his minor son renders the proceedings conducted in the suit filed by the appellant a nullity because it shall be assumed that the minor was not legally represented therein. 6. The trial Court has wrongly exercised the discretion against the appellant on the ground that the prices of the real estate have increased during the pendency of the suit.

Issues: 1. Whether the breach of the agreement had taken place on the part of the guardian of the minor and not on the part of the appellant? 2. Whether the suit for specific performance is barred by the provisions of O.2, R.2, Civil P.C.? 3. Whether the agreement dated June 4, 1979, stood superseded by a fresh and different agreement arrived at between the parties during the pendency of Criminal Revision No. 1495 of 1979, in the High Court on February 4, 1980? 4. Whether the contract between the parties stands frustrated having become impossible of performance because the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereafter the Act) has not granted permission to the respondent to sell the house? 5. Whether the omission to secure an order of the Court in terms of O.32, R.3, Civil P.C. for the appointment of Col. Sukhdev Singh as the guardian of his minor son renders the proceedings conducted in the suit filed by the appellant a nullity because it shall be assumed that the minor was not legally represented therein? 6. Whether the trial Court has wrongly exercised the discretion against the appellant on the ground that the prices of the real estate have increased during the pendency of the suit?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The breach of the agreement had taken place on the part of the guardian of the minor and not on the part of the appellant. 2. The suit for specific performance is not barred by the provisions of O.2, R.2, Civil P.C. 3. The agreement dated June 4, 1979, remained intact and the statements made by the parties on February 4, 1980, did not have the effect of rescission thereof. 4. The contract between the parties does not stand frustrated having become impossible of performance because the competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereafter the Act) has not granted permission to the respondent to sell the house. 5. The omission to secure an order of the Court in terms of O.32, R.3, Civil P.C. for the appointment of Col. Sukhdev Singh as the guardian of his minor son renders the proceedings conducted in the suit filed by the appellant a nullity because it shall be assumed that the minor was not legally represented therein. 6. The trial Court has wrongly exercised the discretion against the appellant on the ground that the prices of the real estate have increased during the pendency of the suit.

Final Decision: The appeal is accepted and the impugned order of the trial Court set aside. The appellant is granted a decree for possession of the house in dispute by specific performance of the agreement of sale dated June 4, 1979. The appellant is allowed two months time to deposit the sale price in Court. The guardian of the minor shall execute the sale-deed of the house in dispute in favour of the appellant within one month thereafter. Should the guardian of the minor fail to execute the saledeed, the appellant will be entitled to get the same executed through Court. The appellant will be entitled to possession of the house after the execution of the sale-deed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.