1996 Supreme(All) 1031

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A.P.Singh
PRAG NARAYAN MOOK BADHIR VIDYALAYA SAMITI ALIGARH
Versus
HUKAM SINGH
Decided On : 12 September 1996
Second Appeal No. 1021 of 1995

Headnote:

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT - Suit for - Maintainability - Plaintiff No. 2, a non-juristic person, cannot enter into a contract or file a suit - Plaintiff No. 1, not a party to the contract, cannot enforce it - Agreement not enforceable as it was not registered - Suit dismissed.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of their contract of sale entered by defendant-respondents, hereafter respondents, for selling the land in suit to the plaintiffs after plaintiffs paid the remaining amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the defendants. According to appellants respondent agreed to sell plots in suit to them for a sum of Rs. 35,000/- out of which at the time of agreement a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was paid by them to respondents. Respondents were to obtain permission from authorities for transferring the land but despite permission having been obtained by them and despite request of appellants to execute the sale deed which was followed with notice to that effect they did not execute the sale deed, hence, the suit.

Finding of the Court:

1. Plaintiff No. 2, a non-juristic person, did not possess the right to enter into contract or to file suit and hold property, agreement entered on its behalf will be deemed to have been executed between the respondent and Sri Devendra Jeet Singh Wadra who alone could file the suit. 2. No fact was stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs were always and still ready and willing to purchase the land in suit and to perform their part of the contract. 3. Description of the property in the agreement was not clear which was vague, therefore, no decree could be prepared as per the relief claimed in the suit as the same will be rendered meaningless. 4. The agreement dated 17.12.1974 was not admissible in evidence for the reason of being unregistered, it was found that the same was required to be registered inasmuch as in that agreement respondents had extinguished their right of possession in the land by delivering it to the appellants, who were also invested with the tight to use the land from that very day in whatever manner they choose without even having to worry about damage to the crops of respondents standing thereon, which under the provisions of Section 17 (ii) (b) of Registration Act was required to be registered. 5. Since the plaintiffs had already been in possession over the land in dispute at the time of execution of the agreement, therefore, relief of possession claimed by them amounted to restoration of possession in their favour which relief could be granted only by the Revenue Court and not by the Civil Court inasmuch as the land in dispute was agricultural land in respect whereof suit for possession would be maintainable under the provisions of Section 209 of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1951. 6. The agreement of sale is for transfer of land for non-agricultural purpose, the same was unenforceable. 7. Since the provisions of the Urban Ceiling Act were applicable to the land in the city of Aligarh and the land in suit is situated within the area in which the Act is applicable and since the land is agricultural land it cannot be sold without obtaining permission from the competent authority.

Issues: 1. Whether Plaintiff No. 2 was capable of filing suit and entering into contract and to hold property the view taken to the contrary by the Lower Appellate Court is wrong; in the alternative, the acts done by the plaintiff No. 2 will be presumed to have been done by plaintiff No. 1 which owns plaintiff No. 2; 2. From the averments of Paras 8, 9 and 10 of the plaint readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to purchase the property as per the agreement was duly made out the Lower Appellate Court was not right in holding that there was no pleading in the plaint in that respect. 3. The fact that the plaintiff-appellants approached the district authorities for compulsory acquisition of the land in suit alongwith some other land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act will not be itself indicate that they were not interested in purchasing the land in suit under the terms of the agreement of sale and the Lower Appellate Court was wrong in drawing the conclusion to the contrary; 4. Statement made by respondents in Para o of the W. S. amounts to their admission of the fact that Sri Devendra Jeet Singh Wadra entered into the agreement of sale as Secretary of plaintiff No. 1.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A contract of sale of immovable property if it is required to be registered by law relating to registration will not be enforceable if it is not registered. 2. A document which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent of the value of Rs. 100/- and upwards to or in immovable property shall have to be registered. 3. In case, document which is required to be registered is not registered, it is not admissible in evidence in proof of any transaction in respect of the property to which it relates and will offer no right in favour of the person holding such document so as to enable him to enforce it by taking recourse to suit. 4. A right will be a right acquired by a person by way of licence if,- (i) it is not the right of that person acquired by himself by way of an interest or a right byway of easement; and (ii) it is granted by the owner of an immovable property authorising that person to do or continue to do something, doing of which in absence of the grant would be illegal. 5. In a suit for specific performance of contract, in view or paragraph 3 of Form 47 of Appendix "a" it is necessary for plaintiff to specifically plead that he has been and still is ready and willing to perform his part of contract which is also requirement in Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act. 6. Pleadings prescribed in above two Forms, namely Form 47 and Form 48 are the standard pleadings which in one or the other way at the discretion of the plaintiff, must be made in a suit for specific performance, failing which the suit will not be maintainable and will be liable to be dismissed. 7. No aid of replication filed by the plaintiff can be taken for making out the ground that the pleadings as required in the abovementioned forms of Appendix A have been made in the plaint.

Final Decision: Appeal dismissed with costs.