Back
2018 Supreme(MP) 627
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Rohit Arya, J.
Himmatlal and others v. M/s Rajratan Concept and others
Civil Revisions No. 191 of 2014 and 192 of 2014 (Indore); Decided on 3.7.2018.
A.K. Sethi with Nitin Phadke for petitioners; Amit Dave for respondent No. 1; D.C. Patel for respondent No. 3.
Headnote:¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vkŒ 7 fuŒ 11¼?k½ & ds v/khu vkosnu & U;k;ky; dk drZO; & fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks lk/kkj.kr% dsoy okni= ds ÁdFkuksa vFkok okni= ds lkFk ÁLrqr ;k vfHkys[k ij yk;k x;k mldk vfHkUu Hkkx ns[kuk gksrk gSA ¼iSjk 19½
¼2½ ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 & vuqPNsn 54 & lafonk ds fofufnZ"V ikyu ds fy, okn & D;k le; foØ; dh lafonk dk eeZ gS & rF; dk Á'u gS & okLrfod ij[k i{kdkjksa dk vk'k; gS & ;g ÁR;sd ekeys ds rF;ksa ij ifjfLFkfr;ksa ij fuHkZj gS & LFkkoj laifÙk ls lacaf/kr lafonk dk eeZ le; gksus dh mi/kkj.kk ugha dh tkrhA ¼2004½ 8 ,l lh lh 689] , vkb vkj 1967 ,l lh 868 rFkk ¼1977½ 2 ,l lh lh 539 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 20 ls 22½
¼3½ ifjlhek vf/kfu;e] 1963 & vuqPNsn 54 & flfoy ÁfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vkŒ 7 fuŒ 11¼?k½ & fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 & /kkjk 16 & djkj ds fofufnZ"V ikyu gsrq okn & 9 ekl ds Hkhrj ikyu dh 'krZ & ifjlhek rFkk vfxze lank;ksa dk fook|d varoZfyr & djkj dHkh jn~n ugha fd;k x;k & foØ; foys[k fu"iknu djus ls bUdkj ugha & lafonk ds ikyu ds fy, oknh dks lwpuki= ugha & D;k le; lafonk dk eeZ gS & rF; dk Á'u gS & i{kdkjksa }kjk lk{; ÁLrqr djus ds i'pkr~ fofuf'pr fd;k tk ldrk gS & vkns'k 7 fu;e 11¼?k½ ds v/khu vkosnu esa bl ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA , vkb vkj 2009 ,l lh 2193 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 23 ls 28½
¼4½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vkŒ 7 fuŒ 11¼?k½ & lafonk ds fofufnZ"V ikyu ds fy, okn & ifjlhek rFkk vfxze lank;ksa dk fook|d varoZfyr & ifjlhek dk Á'u fof/k vkSj rF; dk fefJr Á'u gS & i{kdkjksa }kjk lk{; ÁLrqr djus ds i'pkr~ fofuf'pr fd;k tk ldrk gS & vkns'k 7 fu;e 11¼?k½ ds v/khu vkosnu esa bl ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk & vkosnu [kkfjt djus esa dksbZ =qfV ugha & gLr{ksi visf{kr ughaA ¼iSjk 2+6 ls 29½
(1) Civil P.C. 1908 -- O. 7 R. 11(d) -- application under -- duty of Court -- trial Judge is generally required to see only plaint averments or integral part thereof filed with the plaint or placed on record. [Para 19
(2) Limitation Act, 1963 -- Art. 54 -- suit for specific performance of contract -- whether time is essence of contract to sell -- is question of fact -- real test is intention of parties -- depends upon facts and circumstances of each case -- time is presumed not to be essence of contract relating to immovable property. (2004)8 SCC 689, AIR SC 1967 868 and (1977)2 SCC 539 referred to. [Paras 20 to 22
(3) Limitation Act, 1963 -- Art. 54 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 7 R. 11(d) -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 S. 16 -- suit for specific performance of agreement -- condition for performance within 9 months -- issue of limitation and payments of advance involved -- agreement never cancelled -- no refusal to execute sale deed -- no notice to plaintiff for performance of contract -- time essence of contract -- is question of fact -- can be decided after parties lead evidence -- cannot be dealt with on application under order 7 rule 11(d). AIR 2009 SC 2193 referred to. [Paras 23 to 28
(4) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 7 Rule 11(d) -- suit for specific performance of contract -- issue of limitation and payments of advance involved -- question of limitation is mixed question of law and facts -- same can be decided after parties lead evidence -- cannot be dealt with on application under order 7 rule 11(d) -- no error committed in rejecting such application -- no interference called for. [Paras 26 to 29
1. This order shall govern disposal of Civil Revision No. 191/2014 and Civil Revision No. 192/2014 by the defendants No. 2, 3 and 5 / petitioners preferred under section 115 CPC as the parties are same, facts are identical and question involved is similar in nature, hence decided by this common order. Civil Revision No. 191/2014 is directed against the order dated 1.9.2014 passed in Civil Suit No. 1-A/2013. The trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 rule 11(d) CPC. Civil Revision No. 192/2014 is directed against the order dated 1.9.2014 passed in civil suit No. 1-A/2014. The trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 rule 11(d) CPC. For the sake of convenience, facts in Civil Revision No. 192/2014 have been dealt with.
2. Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this revision petition are in narrow compass: A suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, declaration, permanent injunction and delivery of possession of the suit land is pending consideration since the year 2014 vide civil suit No. 1-A/2014 in the Court of Additional District Judge, Sardarpur, District Dhar. The plaintiff inter alia contended that the agreement to sell of the suit land; agricultural land described in paragraph 3 of the plaint was entered between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 on 27.6.2002 for a consideration of Rs. 70.00 lakhs.
3. The defendant No. 1 Smt. Chandarbai w/o late Champalal Jain succeeded the suit property by virtue of written 'Will' dated 20.1.2000 notarÁed vide No. 218/2000, a testamentary succession to the exclusion of the defendants No. 2 to 9 (i.e., sons and daughters) of the deceased and the same is duly mutated in her name in the revenue record.
4. It is further pleaded that an advance of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid at the time of execution of the agreement (paragraph 9 of the plaint). Further, in paragraph 10, it is pleaded that defendants No. 4 to 9 had also received Rs. 1,00,000/- each and also acknowledged the same by affixing signatures and thumb impressions on the reverse side of the agreement to sell.
5. In paragraph 14, it has been further pleaded that while the plaintiff called upon the defendant No. 1 for registration of the sale deed, the defendant No. 1 had apprised that the objection raised by the defendant No. 3 was resolved by entering into a compromise vide order dated 23.12.2003 passed by the Civil Judge, Class-I. However, Rs. 3,00,000/- was demanded by the defendant No. 1 to meet the expenses incurred by her for various religious activities undertaken in the memory of her late husband with promise to handover the possession of the suit land with kabja receipt and for obtaining necessary permission from the office of the Collector, District Dhar under section 165(6A) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959.
6. The defendant No. 1 had received Rs. 3,00,000/- in cash on 18.8.2004 and also acknowledged the same in writing in the second copy of the agreement to sell (remained with her) in the presence of her son, defendant No. 4. Thereafter, the kabja receipt was handed over to the plaintiff. For ready reference paragraph 14 of the plaint is quoted below :
^^14- ;g fd oknhx.k }kjk Áfroknh Øekad 1 ls oknksDr Hkwfe ds iath;u gsrw tkudkjh pkgh xbZ rc Áfroknh Øekad 1 }kjk ;g tkudkjh nh xbZ dh iq= Áfroknh Øekad 3 dh gd laca/kh vkifRr dk fujkdj.k O;ogkj U;k;ky; oxZ 1 ds ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 23-12-2003 dks vkilh jkthukesa ds }kjk gks x;k gS ,oa esjs LoxhZ; ifr dh ;kn esa fd, x, /kkfeZd dk;Z ds [kpZ ds fy, vuqca/k isVs 3 yk[k /kujkf'k dh foØ; vuqca/k isVs vkSj ek¡x dh xbZ rFkk /kujkf'k ÁkfIr ds lkFk dCtk jlhn nsus dh Hkh ckr dgh rRi'pkr vuqca/k i= iath;u djkus gsrw dysDVj egksn; /kkj ls 1-65 ¼6d½ dh vuqefr dk vkosnu nsus dk Hkh vk'oklu fn;kA oknhx.k }kjk /kujkf'k nsus ckcr dksjk vk'oklu gh ugh fn;k oju mids }kjk Áfroknh Øekad 1 }kjk pkgh xbZ jkf'k fnukad 18-08-2004 dks 3]00]000@& :i;s Áfroknh Øekad 1 dks uxn Ánku fd, x, ftldh
