Back
1991 Supreme(P&H) 1050
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.R.Majithia, J.
Sheo Dayal
Versus
Om Parkash
Regular Second Appeal No. 40 of 1979,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 12, 1991
An agreement to lease without consideration is void under Section 25 of the Contract Act.
Headnote:
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - AGREEMENT TO LEASE - VALIDITY - CONSIDERATION - SECTION 25 OF THE CONTRACT ACT - RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE PROPERTY - PERMANENT LEASE - INVALIDITY - SECTION 63 OF THE PUNJAB RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1925.
Fact of the Case:
Om Parkash sued Umrao Singh and Mittar Sen for specific performance of an agreement to lease dated January 10, 1974, regarding the suit land. Sheo Dayal and Chiranji, who claimed possession under a prior lease deed dated June 1, 1972, were also impleaded as defendants. The lessors denied executing the agreement to lease and claimed that it was invalid as the property was charitable in character and inalienable. The second set of lessees claimed that their lease agreement was prior to the plaintiff's and that the plaintiff's agreement was fake.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court held that the agreement to lease was executed by the lessors but was without consideration and therefore void. The first appellate court reversed this decision, holding that non-payment of the advance amount did not render the agreement void. On second appeal, the High Court held that the agreement to lease was void for want of consideration and that the permanent lease of religious and charitable property was impermissible unless justified in law, which was not the case here.
Issues: 1. Whether the agreement to lease dated January 10, 1974, was executed by the lessors in favor of the plaintiff? 2. Whether the agreement to lease was valid? 3. Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the impugned land by virtue of the agreement to lease? 4. Whether the agreement to lease in favor of the second set of lessees was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An agreement to lease without consideration is void under Section 25 of the Contract Act. 2. Permanent lease of religious and charitable property is impermissible unless justified in law.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the lessors and dismissed the appeal filed by the second set of lessees. The suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.
G.R.Majithia, J.
1. This judgment disposes of Regular Second Appeals No. 40 and 41 of 1979. These are directed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court which, on appeal, reversed those of the trial Judge and decreed the suit of Om Parkash alias Dhaulia, plaintiff/respondent No. 1, for specific performance of agreement to lease dated January 10, 1974.
2. Facts first :-
Om Parkash alias Dhaulia, plaintiff-respondent No. 1, sought specific performance of agreement to lease dated January 10, 1974 regarding the suit land against Umrao Singh and Mittar Sen, defendant-respondents No. 2 and 3 in R. S. A. No. 40 of 1979 and appellants in R. S. A. No. 41 of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the lessors). Sheo Dayal and Chiranji were arrayed as defendants Nos. 4 and 5 by the plaintiff since they claimed that they were in possession of the disputed land under a prior lease deed dated June 1, 1972. They are appellants in R. S. A. No. 40 of 1979, but will be referred to as the second lessees in the body of this judgment. As alleged in the plaint the lessors were to lease out the disputed land to the plaintiff for 99 years on payment of yearly rent of Rs. 180/-. The lease deed was to be registered on or before July 31,1974. The plaintiff was put in possession of the disputed land by the lessors. The second set of lessees threatened to dispossess the plaintiff from the disputed land. They claimed that they were in possession under an earlier lease agreement.
3. The lessors and the second set of lessees contested the claim of the plaintiff. The lessors denied having executed agreement to lease in favour of the plaintiff ; that the agreement to lease was otherwise invalid being in respect of the property which was charitable in character and inalienable. The second set of lessees pleaded that the agreement to lease in favour of the plaintiff was a fake document and they claimed themselves to be in possession of the disputed property under an agreement to lease under the lessors prior to the execution of the agreement to lease dated January 10, 1974.
4. From the pleadings of the patties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Judge :
1) Whether defendants No. 1 and 2 executed a valid agreement to execute a lease deed dated 10.1.1974 in favour of the plaintiff? OPP
2) Whether defendants No. 1 and 2 were not competent to execute the agreement dated 10-1-1974 ? OPP
3) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the impugned land by virtue of the aforesaid agreement ? OPP
4) Whether the agreement is collusive and has been brought into existence illegally ? OPD
5) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action ? OPD
6) Whether the suit is not within time ? OPD
7) Whether the plaintiff was and is willing to perform his part of the contract ? OPP
8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for specific performance ? OPP
9) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ? OPD
10) Relief.
Additional issues were framed by an order dated May 27, 1977 and May 5, 1977 and these read thus :-
1-A) Whether Umrao Singh on his own behalf and on behalf of Mittar Sain received a sum of Rs. 8,000/- as alleged from the plaintiff on 11.6.74 and executed a receipt. If so, its effect ? OPP
2-A) Whether valid agreement of lease dated 16-6-74 in favour of defendants 4 and 5 was executed by defendants No. 1 and 2 ? OPD
2-B) Whether defendants No. 4 and 5 have been in possession of the impugned land prior to this agreement and if so, its effect ? OPD
5. The trial Judge under issue No. 1 held that the agreement to lease dated January 10, 1974 was executed by the lessors in favour of the plaintiff. Under issue No. l-A, it was held that a sum of Rs. 8,000/- alleged to have been advanced by the plaintiff to the lessors on July 11, 1974 was not advanced and this issue was answered against the plaintiff. Issues No. 2-B and 3 were disposed of together and it was held that t
