Back
1985 Supreme(All) 53
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
N. N. SHARMA
BHANWAR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
RAGHUBIR NANWA SINGH - Respondents
Second Appeal 1557 Of 1974
Decided On : 02/15/1985
N.C.RAJVANSHI, PRAKASH KRISHNA
A contract cannot be enforced by or against a person who is not a party thereto, unless there is an exception to this general rule.
Headnote:
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - AGREEMENT TO RECONVEY - ENFORCEABILITY - MUTUALITY OF CONTRACT - COMPENSATION - U. P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT, 1950 - SS. 154, 168-A - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 - S. 45 - SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SS. 12, 16(C), 21.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to reconvey land, alleging that defendants had agreed to reconvey the land to him if he filed a suit within two years of the sale. The trial court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate court set aside the decree, holding that the agreement was not enforceable against one of the defendants, Raja Ram, who had not signed it, and that the relief for specific performance was not awardable against the other defendant, Raghubir Singh, as the contract was indivisible.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the agreement was not enforceable against Raja Ram as he was not a party to it and there was no evidence that he had ratified it. The court also held that the relief for specific performance was not awardable against Raghubir Singh as the contract was indivisible and the plaintiff had not sought to enforce it against him alone. However, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation under S. 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, as the trial court had found that the defendants had entered into the contract of reconveyance and that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
Issues: 1. Whether the agreement to reconvey was enforceable against Raja Ram, who had not signed it? 2. Whether the relief for specific performance was awardable against Raghubir Singh, the other defendant, as the contract was indivisible? 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation under S. 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An agreement cannot be enforced by or against a person who is not a party thereto, unless there is an exception to this general rule. 2. A contract is indivisible and cannot be enforced piecemeal, unless there is an exception to this general rule. 3. A plaintiff is entitled to compensation under S. 21 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, if the defendant has entered into a contract with him and the plaintiff is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed. The plaintiff's claim was decreed to the extent of Rs. 3900/- and interest on the said amount from 24-8-1967 till payment at the rate of Rs. 6% per annum and costs of the suit throughout against defendant No. 1 Raghubir only. In all other respects, the suit failed against the second set of vendees, heirs of Raja Ram who shall bear their own costs throughout.
( 1 ) THIS is plaintiffs appeal directed against judgment and decree D/-13-4-1974 recorded by Sri P. C. Saxena, learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Meerut in Civil Appeal No. 126 of 1972 by which he allowed the said appeal preferred by defendants and set aside the judgment and decree D/-6-3-1972, recorded by Sri Brahma Singh, learned City Munsif, Meerut in Original Suit No. 804 of 1967.
( 2 ) APPELLANT is Bhanwar Singh, plaintiff. Respondents are Raghubir, defendant 1 and heirs of Raja Ram, defendant 2, who were substituted in his place after his death pending the suit through an amendment.
( 3 ) DISPUTE relates to Bhumidhari plots Nos. 224 measuring 15 biswas and 233 measuring 1 bigha and 12 biswas, situate in village Pabla, Tahsil and district Meerut. 3a. The suit was brought with the allegations that on 24-8-1963, Raghubir Singh and Raja Ram (deceased) purchased the disputed land for a sum of Rs. 2200/-, through an agreement executed on the same day, they agreed to reconvey the said holding to plaintiff provided the suit was filed by 24-8-1967. The agreement to reconvey was not enforceable within two years of the sale.
( 4 ) DURING consolidation proceedings, corresponding plots were carved out and so plaintiff brought the action for specific performance of the said agreement with an averment that he was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract but the defendants vendees were not willing to abide by it.
( 5 ) THE relief sought was for specific performance of the said agreement.
( 6 ) DEFENCE was that the said agreement to reconvey was not signed by Raja Ram, and so he was not bound by it. Raghubir Singh put forward a plea of fraud also. It was further pleaded that the suit was barred by Ss. 154 and 168-A of U. P. Zaminadari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
( 7 ) LEARNED trial Court framed seven issues.
( 8 ) LEARNED trial Court found that vendees did enter into the contract of reconveyance; the agreement was duly executed and no fraud was practised on the defendants; the suit was not barred by S. 168-A of U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act; S. 154 of aforesaid Act did not operate as a bar in allowing the claim of plaintiff. It was also found that plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs. 7800/- as compensation from defendants in the alternative as sought by him. However, he awarded the relief for specific performance of contract of sale provided the plaintiff deposited the sale price i. e. Rs. 2200/- in Court within one and half months of the date of decree. On deposit, the defendants were ordered to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of plots in dispute within 15 days of the deposit failing which it was to be executed through the process of the court. Thus, the claim was allowed with costs.
( 9 ) LEARNED lower appellate Court confirmed the finding of learned Munsif on the point that the agreement was not arrived at by practising fraud but Raja Ram was not party to it and under these circumstances, the said agreement was not enforceable against Raja Ram.
( 10 ) HE further found that the relief for specific performance was not awardable nor the alternative relief for damages by way of compensation was allowable. In the result, the appeal was allowed with costs and the decree of learned trial Court was set aside.
( 11 ) PLAINTIFF has filed this appeal.
( 12 ) I have heard learned counsel for parties at length and perused the record.
( 13 ) ON behalf of appellant, it was strenuously argued before me that on a look at agreement Ext. 1 D/-24-8-1963 and sale deed Ext. A-4 D/-24-8-1963, it shall be obvious that the stamped papers of the agreement as well as the sale deed on which the aforesaid documents were drawn on the same day, were purchased by Raja Ram.
( 14 ) BHANWAR Singh (P. W. 1) testified that the agreement was executed at the instance of both the vendees and Raghubir was acting as the agent of Raja Ram.
( 15 ) GANGA Sharan (P. W. 2), scribe of the agreement, testified that Raghubir Sing
