Back
2006 Supreme(All) 1642
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sunil Ambwani
LAJJA RAM LALAM - Appellant
Versus
KANHAI CHANDRA - Respondents
Second Appeal 2722 Of 1977
Decided On : 05/26/2006
A.N.BHARGAWA, Anshu Chaudhary, GANGA PRASAD, H.S.NIGAM, J.N.CHATTERJI, K.C.SAXENA, S.S.Nigam
The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforceability of compromise agreements and the requirement of registration for new rights created by compromise.
Headnote:
specific performance - contract - Order 23 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure - Section 17 of the Registration Act - the judgment discussed the legal provisions of specific performance of contract, the validity of compromise decrees, and the requirement of registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over a property and a compromise agreement between the parties for the transfer of ownership rights.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the compromise agreement was enforceable and the plaintiff was entitled to specific performance of the contract.
Issues: The issues included the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court to verify and accept the compromise decree, the enforceability of the compromise agreement, and the date from which the payment under the agreement should begin to run.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the agreement for compromise, if lawful, can be enforced by the regular Civil Court, and the terms of the agreement bind the parties as a contract. Additionally, the Court emphasized the requirement of registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act for new rights created by compromise of more than Rs. 100.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, affirming the findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.
( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
( 2 ) THIS second appeal arises out of o. S. No. 508 of 1970, Raska Nand v. Lajja ram, for specific performance of contract. The suit was decreed on 27. 5. 1976. The civil appeal no. 141 of 1976 arising thereof was dismissed with directions to defendant-appellant to execute sale deed within six months, of the constructed building in accordance with the terms and conditions of the compromise dated 14. 3. 1969, in default whereof the deed shall be executed through Court, at the cost of defendant-appellant.
( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to the suit in brief are that the plaintiff and Brij Bihari were owners of khasara Plot No. 211 with an area of 1. 65 acres, Thok Dusayat Patti Shamlat. The plaintiff filed a suit in 1976, Raska Nand v. Brij Behari for partition. The property scheduled in the plaint fell in the share of the plaintiff and he got possession over it in 1949. A portion of the property was taken by the State government for which the plaintiff got compensation. There was a Bagicha. a Pucca building, a Well, a pit and Samadhi in the disputed property. The plaintiff executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant of a part of the plot. The plaintiffs are also owners of a part of the building shown in red colour and a land shown in white in the plaint map.
( 4 ) THE defendant purchased part of plot no. 211 and part of building from Brij Behari etc. and got a sale deed executed in their favour. The Police Department and Municipality took specific portions of the building on rent. The Police Department established a police outpost in a portion and Municipality established an octroi post in a tin shed. The Municipality paid rent to the plaintiff whereas rent of the police outpost at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month was collected by defendant for three years. He did not pay the plaintiffs share of the rent.
( 5 ) THE plaintiff filed a Small Cause Court suit No. 55 of 1968 for recovery of rent. In this suit the parties entered into a compromise on 14. 3. 1969, the terms of which were as follows:-A. The plaintiffs and the defendants were co-sharer of the building in which police out post exists and each of them had 1/2 share. B. The plaintiffs, within six months, will pay Rs. 800/- to the defendants of his share and then they will become owner of the building and land of plot No. 211 and will be entitled to recover rent from police department. The defendant will recover rent from Police Department of the outpost building till the plaintiffs pay him Rs. 800/- his share. C. If the plaintiffs fail to pay Rs. 800 to the defendants within time, their suit will be dismissed and they will have no title or ownership in the disputed property.
( 6 ) THE Court verified the compromise on 12. 2. 1970. The plaintiff deposited Rs. 800 in the Court on 30. 4. 1970 and moved an application with a prayer that the sale deed be executed in their favour according to the compromise. The application was dismissed with remarks"as there is no entry in writing on the part of the defendant to make registration (ineligible)of the plaintiffs. "the plaintiffs alleged that if his right is not accepted then the plaintiffs are at least entitled to recover the rent of their share from the defendant and the position of the parties will be that of, before filing of the compromise.
( 7 ) THE defendant contested the suit alleging that he is the owner of the building of which Police Department is the tenant. He does not know whether the plaintiffs recovered rent from Municipality for octroi post. The terms of the compromise should have been complied with by the plaintiff treating the date of deposit w. e. f. 14. 3. 1969 and not from 12. 2. 1970. There was no such agreement between the parties which binds the defendants to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant also took the plea of under-valuation and payment of insufficient court fees.
( 8 ) THE Trial Court held that the defendant re
