Back
2010 Supreme(All) 454
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAKESJH SHARMA, J.
HODIL SINGH
Versus
BHAGWANT SINGH
Decided On : 03 February 2010
Second Appeal No. 156 of 2010
A.T.Kulshrestha, Anil Kumar Aditya, MANISH CHANDRA TIWARI,
The importance of upholding the sanctity of contracts and agreements, and the duty of the court to enforce promises made by the parties.
Headnote:
agreement to sell - dispute over land sale - [Transfer of Property Act, Section 54; Specific Relief Act, Section 16(c)] - The court discussed the validity of the agreement to sell, the intention and readiness of the parties to execute the sale deed, and the application of the principles of Res Judicata. The court affirmed the lower appellate court's decision, emphasizing the importance of upholding the sanctity of contracts and agreements.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over an agreement to sell a piece of agricultural land, with the vendor seeking to declare the agreement null and void and the vendee seeking specific performance of the contract. The trial court dismissed the vendor's suit and partly decreed the vendee's suit, which was later set aside by the lower appellate court.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court's findings that there existed an agreement to sell, not a lease deed, remained unchallenged and operated against the appellants. The lower appellate court's decision was supported by evidence of the vendee's intention, willingness, and readiness to execute the sale deed.
Issues: Validity of the agreement to sell, intention and readiness of the parties to execute the sale deed, application of principles of Res Judicata.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of upholding the sanctity of contracts and agreements, and the duty of the court to enforce promises made by the parties.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court.
( 1 ) HEARD Sri Anil Kumar Aditya, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Manish Chandra Tiwari, holding brief of Sri AT. Kulsreshtha, learned counsel for the respondents as well as perused the materials on record, including the judgments of the Courts below.
( 2 ) THIS Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21. 11. 2009, passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 12, Aligarh, in Civil Appeal No. 130 of 2004, Bhagwant Singh v. Holdil Singh, allowing the appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 by which the judgment and decree dated 22. 5. 2004, passed by the Trial Court has been set aside.
( 3 ) IT emerges from the record that an agreement to sell (a lease deed as alleged by the appellant) was executed by one Hodil Singh, now represented through his legal heirs and legal representatives, on 27. 4. 1994 for selling of his bhumidhari agricultural land measuring 8 Bigha 13 Biswa and 15 Biswansi, situate in Village Bajrangpur, Majra Vijay Garh, Pargana Akrabad, Tehsil Sikandra Rao, now Tehsil Koil, District Aligarh. The said deed was duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar Sikandra Rao, District Aligarh. Lateron, two Suits were filed in the Civil Court, that is, one being Suit No. 375 of 1995, preferred by Hodil Singh against Bhagwant Singh, seeking a relief that the said agreement to sell, registered on 27. 4. 1994, be declared null and void. He had challenged this deed on various grounds as mentioned in the plaint. According to him, a document which was registered on 27. 4. 1994, was, in fact, a lease deed for cultivating the land in dispute. Neither adequate consideration or price of the land was given to him nor he ever intended to transfer his agricultural land. Another Suit, that is, suit No. 855 of 1998, Bhagwant Singh v. Hodil Singh was filed by Bhagwant singh, now represented through his legal heirs and legal representatives, against Holdil Singh seeking specific performance of the contract entered into between the parties.
( 4 ) IT was pleaded by Bhagwant Singh that the said agreement to sell was executed by Hodil Singh agreeing to sell the aforesaid land for a total sum of Rs. 1,55,000/- for which a written agreement/contract was prepared, executed and registered on 27. 4. 1994 in the office of the Sub-Registrar. A sum of Rs. 30,000/-was paid as an advance amount to Hodil Singh. According to him Rs. 26,000/-was paid before to Hodil Singh before registration of the agreement to sell and Rs. 4,000/- was paid at the time of registration of the agreement to sell in the office of the Sub Registrar. These events were noted in the agreement to sell. The parties were agreed that the sale deed would be executed by 27. 10. 1995. In the meantime, vendee, that is, Bhagwant Singh, was required to make arrangements of the remaining amount to be paid to vendor at the time of execution of the sale deed.
( 5 ) IN furtherance of the agreement to sell, Bhagwant Singh, sent a written notice to Hodil Singh, vendor, on 3. 7. 1995 for execution of the sale deed, indicating therein that he had arranged the money, but Hodil Singh did not turn up to execute the sale deed. Thereafter, notices were sent on 25. 10. 1995 and 27. 10. 1995 by bhagwant Singh for execution of the sale deed in the office of the Sub Registrar. It was pleaded by Bhagwant Singh in the plaint of Suit No. 855 of 1998 that through notices he had indicated to Hodil Singh that he was willing to pay the remaining balance amount towards sale consideration and was ready to get the sale deed executed to discharge his part of contract. On refusal of Hodil Singh, he was compelled to file Suit No. 855 of 1998, which was ultimately decided by the judgment and decree dated 22. 5. 2004.
( 6 ) THE Trial Court had decided these two Suits by one and common judgment. It had dismissed the Suit preferred by Hodil Singh, declining to hold that the document/deed, which was registered on 27. 4. 1994 was a lease deed. It was held by
