Allahbad High Court
K.B.ASTHANA
Pahunchi Lal - Appellant
Versus
Man Singh - Respondent
Decided On : 02/08/1971
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE - SALE OF LAND - AGREEMENT TO SELL - VALIDITY - SECTION 23 OF THE CONTRACT ACT - SECTION 154 OF THE U. P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT - CONTINGENT CONTRACT - SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF SALE OF SIRDARI PLOTS - SECTION 134 OF THE U. P. ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT - DISCRETION OF THE COURT - COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff and defendant entered into an agreement for the sale of a parcel of land comprising four plots, 1.65 acres in area, for a consideration of Rs. 3200/-. The agreement was registered and stipulated that the sale-deed would be executed and registered within one year from the close of consolidation operations in the village. The consolidation operations came to an end on 24-4-1965, and in the process, the four plots agreed to be sold were substituted by two plots: Bhumidhari plot No. 639, 1.43 acres in area, and Sirdari plot No. 740, 22 acres in area. The plaintiff demanded the execution of the sale deed and payment of the balance of the consideration, but the defendant refused. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit for the sale of the Bhumidhari plots but dismissed the suit with regard to the sale of Sirdari plots. The lower appellate court allowed the plaintiff's cross-objection and decreed the suit in toto. The defendant appealed to the High Court.
Issues: 1. Whether the agreement to sell was void and unenforceable under Section 23 of the Contract Act read with Section 154 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act? 2. Whether the agreement to sell was a contingent contract and not a concluded contract? 3. Whether the defendant could acquire Bhumidari rights by paying ten times the rent of the Sirdari plots? 4. Whether the lower appellate court erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for the Sirdari plots?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 154 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act prohibits Bhumidhars from selling land to persons who would, as a result of the sale, become entitled to land exceeding twelve and a half acres in Uttar Pradesh. However, this restriction applies to the transfer of interest in the land by sale and not to an agreement to sell. An agreement to sell Bhumidari land does not amount to a transfer of interest in favor of the vendee and is, therefore, not covered by the provisions of Section 154. 2. The agreement to sell in this case was a concluded contract and not a contingent contract. The vendor undertook to pay ten times the rent of the Sirdari plots and convert them into Bhumidari before the date of the sale. This was not an event beyond the control of the vendor. 3. Section 134 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act provides that a Sirdar can acquire Bhumidhari rights by paying ten times the land revenue payable on the land. The defendant belonged to the class of Sirdars mentioned in Section 131(a) of the Act and was, therefore, entitled to acquire Bhumidhari rights in the Sirdari plots. 4. The lower appellate court did not err in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for the Sirdari plots. The defendant could be compelled by a decree of the court to take steps and obtain Bhumidhari rights in the Sirdari plots agreed to be sold.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, but the parties were directed to bear their own costs throughout.
2. The plaintiff Man Singh on 4-5-1963 entered into an agreement with the defendant Pahunchi Lal to sell a parcel of land comprising of four plots, 1.65 acres in area, on payment of a consideration of Rs. 3200/-. Pahunchi Lal paid Rs. 2150/- as earnest money. The balance of Rs. 1050/- was payable at the time of registration. It was stipulated that the sale-deed would be executed and registered within one year from the close of consolidation operations in the village. It was further stipulated that out of the plots to be sold consisting of Bhumidhari and Sirdari, Pahunchi Lal would convert the Sirdari plots into Bhumidhari plots by depositing ten times of their rent. It was also stipulated that if during the consolidation proceedings new plots were substituted in place of the plots agreed to be sold then the substituted plots shall be sold. The above terms were reduced into writing and the document evidencing the agreement for sale on the terms above was duly executed by Pahunchi Lal and got registered. The original deed is Ext. I on record.
3. The Consolidation operations in the village came to an end on 24-4-1965 on the issue of a notification under Section 52 of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. In the Consolidation operations chak No. 601 was allotted to Pahunchi Lal in which four plots agreed to be sold were substituted by two plots; Bhumidhari plot No. 639, 1.43 acres in area and Sirdari plot No. 740, 22 acres in area. On 3-8-1965 Man Singh gave a notice to Pahunchi Lal for executing the sale-deed and getting it registered on payment of Rs. 1050/-, the balance of the consideration. Pahunchi Lal did not execute the sale deed as demanded. Man Singh then filed the suit giving rise to this appeal on 30-8-1965 for specific performance of the sale of the above said Bhumidhari and Sirdari plots 1.65 acres in area on payment of Rs. 1050/-. In the alternative a decree was claimed for the return of the amount paid as earnest money and for damages for breach of contract.
4. Pahunchi Lal contested the suit, inter alia, on the pleas that agreement dated 4-5-1963 signed by him was void and unenforceable for the reasons: (a) his signatures were obtained thereon by fraud and undue influence exercised by the plaintiff (b) Man Singh was a tenure holder having more than twelve and half acres of land on the day when the said agreement was executed, thus it was hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act, read with Section 154 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. It was also pleaded that the contract of sale deed could not be specifically performed as the sirdari plots could not be transferred under the provisions of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
5. The learned Munsif on the evidence on record found that the agreement to sell dated 4-5-1963 was duly executed and registered and was binding on the defendant there being no evidence on record of any fraud practised or any undue influence exercised on him by the plaintiff. He further held that as the defendant could not acquire Bhumidari rights by paying ten times rents of the Sirdari-plots, no decree for specific performance of the contract of sale in regard to Sirdari plots could be passed. He further held that though the plaintiff possessed more than twelve and half acres of land on the day when the agreement to sell, Ext. I, was executed, but on the date of the suit the plaintiff was not in possession of more than twelve and half acres of land and on acquisition by him of the plots agreed to be sold, his total holding would not exceed more than twelve and half acres. On these findings the learned Munsif decreed the plaintiff's suit for the sale of Bhumidari pl
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.