MRS. CHANDNEE WIDYA VATI MADDEN versus DR. C. L. KATIAL & OTHERS

Citation: [1964] 2 S.C.R. 495 · Decided: 25-03-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
495 
For the reasons given above we allow the 
appeals and answer the question referred to the Hi!)h 
Court in favour of the assessee. 
The appellant will 
be entitled to his costs in this court as also in the 
High Court ; there will be one hearing fee. 
Appeals allowed. 
MRS. CHANDNEE WIDYA VATI MADDEN 
v. 
DR. C. L. KATIAL & OTHERS 
(B. P. SINHA, C. J., J.C. SHAH and 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.) 
Specific performance'-Contract to sell house property-
Implied t•rm-Poi11ts not raised in the High Court, if be allowed 
for the first time in this Court. 
The plaintiffs-respondents entered into a contract of sale 
in respect of a house property belonging to the appellant. The 
deed of agreeuient provided that the vendor shall obtain the 
pt"rmh.sion of the Chief Commissioner to the transaction of 
sale within two months of the agreement and if the sairl 
permission was not forthcoming within that time, it was open 
to the purchasers to extend the date or to treat the agreement 
as canceJlcd. 
As the necessary permission was not forthcom-
ing ~.vithin the stipulated time, the purchasers extended the 
time by another month. The appellant withdrew her applica-
tion for the necessary 
permission. The defendant having 
failed to perform 
her part of the contrart, the plaintiffs 
brought a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale or 
in the alt<rnative for damages. 
The trial court, althoug-h it 
found that the plaintiffs had been throughout ready ani willing, 
inderd anxiou-., to perform their part of the contract and that 
it was the defendant who had backed out of it, refused the main 
relief of specific performance of the contract on the ground that 
the agreement was inchoate, as the previous sanction of the 
Chief Com1nissioner to the proposed transfer had not been 
obtained. The High Court came to the conclusion that there 
1963 
Pfii/ip lnlm Fla!kei 
Thomas 
v. 
Commiuionf!r of 
Income-tax, Ca'c111ta 
Das J. 
1961 
A1.arch 25 
1963 
Ch,.ndritd WidJ·a 
Vnli Afc~~n 
v. 
C. L. Kahal 
5in.\o c. J. 
496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
was a completed contract between the parties and that the 
condition in the agreement that the vendor would obtain the 
sanction of the Chief Commiisioner to the transaction of sale 
did not render the contract incomplete and the trial court was 
in error in holding that the agre"ment was inchoate. 
Held that on the findings in this case, the court had got 
to enforce the terms of the con;.ract and to enjoin upon the 
defendant·appellant to make the necessary application to the 
Chief Commissioner, which was implied in the contract. It 
will be for the Chief Commissioner to decide whether or not to 
grant the necessary sanction. 
In the event of the sanction 
being refused, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to the damages 
as decreed by the High Court. 
In this view of the matter, 
the High Court was entirely correct in decreeing the suit for 
specific performance of the contract. 
Motiwl v. Nanhelal (1930) L. R. 57 I. A. 33, referred to. 
Held further, that the points not sprcifically raised in 
the High Court 
nor pleaded in the pleaclir.gs should not 
be allowed for the first time to be raised in this Court. 
C1vn, APPELLATE jt:RISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 559 of 1962. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 
March 21, J!Hil, of the Punjab High Court (Circuit 
Bench) at Delhi in Regular First Appeals Nos. 8 D 
and 21-D of 1960. 
A. Rnnganadham 
Chetty, S. K. Mehta and 
J(. L. J!ehta, for the appellant. 
ilf. C. Setalvad, Hardayal H11rdy and S. N. 
Anand, for the respondents. 
HJ63. March 25. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
SINHA 
C. J.-This appeal on a certificate 
granted by the High Court of Punjab arises out of 
a suit for specific performance of. a cont_raet. of sale 
in respect of a house property situate m 1ughlak 
Road 
New Delhi, belonging to the appellant and 
built ~n a lease-hold plot granted by the GO\·ernmrnt 
-
-
,, 
.-: 
•.•
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
497 
in the year 1935, to her predecessor-in-title. It appears 
that the plaintiffs entered into a contract of sale in 
re<pect of the disputed 
property for the sum of 
R5. 1,10,000/-. 
The deed of agreement is dated 
September 4, 1956. In so far as it is necessary to 
notice the terms of the document, the agreement 
provided that the vendor shall obtain the permission 
of the Chief Commissioner to the transaction of sale 
within two months of the agreeme

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