Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 2335
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SNEH PRASHAR, J.
RAMESH KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
M/S DHURI POLYMERS - Respondent
RSA No. 707 of 2012 (O&M)
Decided On : 13-02-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Anil Shukla, Advocate.
An agreement without consideration and with vague terms is invalid under Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Headnote:
Interest - Partnership Dispute - Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 25
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of interest on sale deeds deposited as security with a bank. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court dismissed it based on Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the agreement for interest was without consideration and its contents were vague, making it invalid under Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Issues: The issues included the entitlement of the plaintiffs to recover the suit amount and interest, maintainability of the suit, and mis-joinder of necessary parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the agreement for interest lacked consideration and specificity, rendering it invalid under Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the suit for recovery of interest was not upheld.
SNEH PRASHAR, J.
1. This was Regular Second Appeal filed by appellants-plaintiffs Ramesh Kumar and another (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs") impugning the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sangrur whereby the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants-M/s Dhuri Polymers and another (hereinafter referred to as "the defendants"), challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2009 passed in Case No.1358 of 23.12.2003 by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhuri, decreeing the suit for recovery of Rs.38,399.96/- along with interest, was allowed; the judgment and decree dated 15.01.2009 was set aside; and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.
2. A suit for recovery of Rs.42,500/- along with interest from the date of filing of the suit till realization was filed by Ramesh Kumar and his mother Vidya Wati (plaintiffs) against the defendants pleading that Rakesh Kumar along with Vikas Goyal and Vishal Goyal sons of Kishan Gopal were partners of firm M/s Dhuri Polymers (defendant No.1) by virtue of partnership deed dated 01.04.2002. Vikas Goyal and Vishal Goyal retired from the partnership business and a dissolution deed/retirement deed dated 31.03.2003 was executed in that regard. The firm M/s Dhuri Polymers had got sanctioned a limit/loan from Punjab National Bank, Dhuri by depositing sale deed No.1920 dated 11.08.1981 for the value of Rs.13,50,000/- in name of Ramesh Kumar (plaintiff No.1) and sale deed No.3337 dated 08.11.1983 of the value of Rs.20,58,544/- in favour of Vidya Wati (plaintiff No.2) as security with the said bank. After dissolution of the partnership business, Sanjiv Kumar (defendant No.2) agreed to get both the sale deeds released from the bank by 15.07.2003 and a writing to the said effect was executed in favour of the plaintiffs. By way of the writing, it was agreed by Sanjiv Kumar-defendant No.2 that in case he failed to get the sale deeds released by the stipulated date i.e. 15.07.2003, the plaintiffs would be entitled to claim interest from the defendants at the rate of 12% per annum on the valuation amount of the sale deeds. Since defendant No.2 got the sale deeds released only on 21.08.2003, the plaintiffs claimed that they had become entitled to recover amount of Rs.42,500/- from the defendants being interest on valuation amount of sale deeds. Refusal of the defendants to pay the interest amount necessitated filing of the suit.
3. The defendants contested the suit raising various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the suit, mis-joinder of necessary parties etc. The writing relied upon by the plaintiffs was alleged to be forged and fabricated. They added that Kamlesh Rani and Sanjiv Kumar were also partners of M/s Dhuri Polymers and that the sale deeds No.1920 and 3337 were deposited with the bank as security at the instance of Vikas Goyal and Vishal Goyal. During the course of business, Ramesh Kumar (plaintiff No.1) used to take signatures of other partners on blank papers and blank sheet of letter pad and it was one of those blank papers/ letter pad sheet signed by the defendants in good faith that Ramesh Kumar had forged the writing and was bent upon to take undue advantage of the same.
4. On the rival contentions of the parties, following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the suit amount? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interest if so what rate and to what extent? OPP.
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPD.
4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPD.
5. Relief.
5. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their rival contentions.
6. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties and the evidence on record, learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 15.01.2009.
7. The defendants preferred an appeal which was allowed by learned Additional District Ju
