DR. JIWAN LAL & ORS. versus BRIJ MOHAN MEHRA & ANR.

Citation: [1973] 2 S.C.R. 230 · Decided: 14-09-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

230 
DR. JIW AN LAL & ORS. 
v. 
BRIJ MOHAN MEHRA & ANR. 
September 14, 1972 
[J. M. SHELAT, 0. G. PALEKAR AND S. N. DWIVEDI, JJ.] 
Specific Relief-Stipulation in contract for benefit of one party only-
If could be u•aived by hi111-Specific perfonnance-Delay in filing suit 
for-lrlren 1naterial. 
· 
The appellant and re5pondcnts enterd into a contract under which, 
from the very inception, the respondents became liable to sell their immov· 
able property and the appellants became liable to buy it. One of the terms 
of '.'le contract provided that if the property was requisitioned by the Gov· 
ernnent prior t~ the registration of the sale-deed the respondents should 
refund the earnest money paid by the appellants with interest. The pre-
mises were requisitioned before the execution of the sale-deed. The res· 
pondnts tendered a cheque 'for the earnest money with interest and filed 
an appeal 
again;t 
the order 
6[ requisition 
but 
the 
appeal 
WO' 
dbmissed. 
NOl\\'ithstanding 
the 
requisition, 
the 
appellants 
~·ere repeatedly asking the respondents to exe:cute the sale-deed in accor-
dance with the agreement. As the respondents did not do so, the appellants 
filed a suit for specific performance of the contract about two years after 
the respondent's appeal against the order of requisition was dismissed. The 
trial court decreed the suit but the High Court reversed the decree. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD: (I) There is nothing in the agreement to show that non· 
requisitioning of the property was a condition precedent to the performance 
of the seller's (respondent's) obligation ·.o sell the premises or that the con-
truct came to an end on the requisitioning of the prcn1iscs. 
On the con-
trary, the no'.l-rcquisitioning of the premise~ was a condition precedent t~ 
the performance of the buyer's (appclbnts) obligation to buy the pre· 
mises. 
That is. when the premises were requisitioned. the appellants 
could rescind the contract if they so desired. 
As the clause relating to 
requisitioning \vas inserted for the excl11sil'e benefit of the 1·endc•c and- not 
for the benefit of the vendor as well as the vendee and it did not create 
any liabilities against the vendee the appellants (vendee) could waive, 
unilaterally, the condition precedent spcc;ificd in the clause. (238D-E. H: 
236A] 
Dalsukh Af. Pane/Joli v. The Guarantee Life and E111p/oyn1e11t Insur-
ance Co. Ltd. and Others, A.LR. 1947 P.C. 182. 
Hawksley '· Outram, 
[1892] 3 Ch. 259 and Morrell v. S111dd and Miili1won. [19131 2 Ch. 648. 
1crerred to. 
(2) Where it \\'ould be uniust to give :i. remedy to a party either be-
cause he has. by his couduct. done that which might fairly be regarded a' 
an equivalent to a \i,·aiver of it ort where by his conduct and neglect he 
has, though perhaps not waiving that remedy. put the other party in a 
situation in which it would not he reasonahle to place him if the remedy 
were afterwards to be asserted, in either of these cases, lapse of time and 
delay are material. [236G-H: 237AJ 
In the present case, the appeIJants never abandoned their rights und"r 
the contract. They were justified in waiting till the elate of disposal of 
the appeal against the order of requii;ition in the hope th['tt the order of 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
JIWANLAL v. B. M. MEHRA (Dwivedi, J.) 
231 
requisition might be set aside in appeal. 
Thereafter, they were pressing 
the respondents to execute the sale deed. Therefore, they never waived the 
remedy of specific performance . 
. Further there is no allegation in the respondent's written statement 
that they would be prejudiced by the specific perfcrmance, nor is there 
any evidenc to that effect. 
Therefore, the delay in the institution of the suit had not caused any 
disadvantage to the respondents. 
Lindsay Petroleum Co. v. Hurd, L.R., S P.C. applied. 
[Directions regarding execution of the sale deed given] 
CIVIL APPELLP.TE JURISDICTION : C.A. No. 1100 of 1967. 
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and decree dated 
January 25, 1966 of the Punjab High Court at Chandigarh in 
Civil Regular First Appeal No. 362 of 1964. 
C. K. Daphtary, M. C. Chag/a, S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja, 
D 
M. Qamaruddin, K. S. Suri and R. K. Mehtq, for the appellants. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
M. C. Seta/vad, S. T. Desai and /. N. Shroff for respon-
. dent No. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DwIVEDI, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree 
of the High Court of Punjab an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.