LexJAGDISH CHANDER (DEAD) BY L. RS. versus BRIJ MOHAN & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
, . •• J ,. 805 JAGDISH CHANDER (DEAD) BY L. RS. v. BRIJ MOHAN & ORS. February 6, 1978 [S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] Transfer of Prosperty Act, (Act 4 of 1882) ss. 6, 1955 (2) read with ss. 15 a11d 17 of tl1e Specific Relief Act-Contract of agreement to repurchase the lands, assig11ability-Whetlier specific performance can lie. U.P. Zamindari Abolitio11 and La11d Reforms, Act 1950, s. 154-Restric- tions on the transfer by a Bhumidari-Powers of the Court to exercise its dis- cretion in passing the decree for specific performance. One Ata-llahi Khan executed a sale deed in favour of the appe1lant, Shri Jagdish Chander on 12-7-1968 and the !!litter took possession of the suit lands. Oa the same da~ by an agreement, Jagdish Chander agreed to reconvey the suit lands specifically to Ata-Illahi Khan or bis heirs, if the amount of con- sideratioo was repa.id to him within a period of five years. On 18-12-195?, Ata-flahi Khan transferred his right to repurchase through a sale deed m favour of one Bir Narain and others. Thereafter, Ata-.Ilahi again transferred his right ttJ repurchase through another sa.le deed dated 21-7-1962 in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. :rhe sui• for specific performance filed by the respondents on the basis of' the sale deed' da.ted 21-7-1962 failed. But the first appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit The High Court affirmed the said appellate judgment. Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court. HEW : 1. Supreme Court cannot go behind the findings of fact in appeal by special leave under Art. 136. [807 D-E] In the instant case, the right to repurchase did not vest in Bir Narain and others as per the sale deed daM:d 18-12-1958 in their favour but with the plaintiffs. [807 E] 2. Before s. 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950 can apply, it must be found as a fact that the person to whom the property is transferred must have held an aggregate of 12t acres or 30 acres as the case may be at the relevant period. [807 G-H] ln the ·instant case the plaintiffs did not have lands exceeding 12! acres s<? as to fall within the mischief of s. 154 of the Act. [807 H, 808 A-BJ [The Court applied "non-liquet" as to whether ~he Courts below should have exercised their discretion to passing a decree for specific performance] B c D E F CivrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1946 of 1970. Appeal by Special Leave from .the Judgment and Order dated G 15-5-1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 2653 ·Of 1967. S. C. Manchanda and S. T. Aneja for the Appe11ants. M. S. Gupta for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. I. S. Sawhney for Respondent No. 3. TI1e Judgment of the Court was delivered by 13-119 SCI/78 H ~06 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1978] 2 S.C.R. A FAZAL ALI, J. This is a defendant's appeal by special leave and is directed against the judgment dated 15th May, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court upholding the decree passed by the District Judge in favour of the plaintiff for specific performance of a contract of sale : B c n E F H The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass and may be briefly stated thus. The defendant J agdish Chander purchased the lands in dispute for a consideration of Rs. 6000/- by a sale deed dated 12th July, 1958 including the Bhumidhari land fFom Ata Ilahi Khan who was the pro- prietor of the said lands. The sale deed in favour of the defendant Jagdish Chander contained a stipulation that the vendor would be entitled to repurchase the property for the consideration mentioned in the sale deed within five years from the date of the execution of the sale deed. On 18th December, 1958 Ata Ilahi Khan sold his right of repurchase of the land under the sale deed above mentioned to Bir Narain, Mangal Singh and Mukanda Singh. Thereafter, a few years later on 21st May, 1962 Ata Ilabi Khan again sold his right of repur- chase in respect of the aforesaid property to Brij Mohan and Chandra- pal Singh, plaintiffs No. 1 & 2. It would thus be seen that while selling the property to the defendant Jagdish Chander Ata Ilahi Khan had clearly incorporated an agreement to reseµ. the land within five years on payment of the consideration of the sale deed itseH. Armed with the sale deed executed by Am Ilahi Khan in favour of the plaintiffs, the respondents filed the present suit for specific performance of the con- tract o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.