PIAREY LAL versus HORI LAL

Citation: [1977] 2 S.C.R. 915 · Decided: 07-02-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

PIAREY LAL 
v. 
HORiLAL 
February 7, 1977 
[P. K. GdSWAMI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.] 
U.P. Co11solidatio11 of Holdiitgs Act, 1953, s. 30(b)-Whether agreement 
for sale creates liability for tenure-Jzolder "in" original holding for the purpose 
of. 
B 
The appellant Piarey Lal had agreed to sell his original nolding to Hori Lal 
C 
nut later refused to do so on the ground that his p"roperty which was the 
subject matter of~the contract had been consolidated under the U.P. Consoli-
dation of Holdings Act, 1953, and it was impossible to perform the agree-
ment. 
Hori Lal filed a suit for specific performance contending that the agree-
ment for sale had created a liability for Piarey Lal for the purpose of section 
30(b) o.f the Act, arid the same wl!S transferred to the new plot or "chak" 
allotted to him as a result of ·the consolidation. The suit was decreed 
by 
the Trial Court and Piarey Lal's appeals before the District Court and the 
n. 
High Cuurt were dismissed. 
u· 
Allowing the appeal by Special Leave the Court, 
HELD : . By virtue of s. 54 of the_ Trapsfer of Property Act, the agree-
ment for shle did not give fise to any interest "in" the original holding of the 
dtifen<'innt as the tenure-holder. 
There could thus be no occasion for 
the 
transfer of any such "liability" in his new land or "chak" so as to attract 
clause (b) of s. 30 of the Act. When he lost that property as a result of 
the scheme of consolidation, the agreement for sale became void. [918 C-El 
Sugna & Anr. v. Kali Ram & Ors. 1966 A. L. J. 1004, ruiiproved. 
Shanti frasad v. Akhtar & Anr. 1972 A.L.J. 549 and Clzetan Singh & Ors. 
v. Hira Singh & Ors. 1969 A.L.J. 189. overruled . 
E 
. CIVIL ArPELLATE Juiusi>ICTION : Civil Appe~l No. 
1252 of 
1976. 
F 
Appeal by spei;ial Leave froni the Judgment and Order dated 
13-8-1975 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 179/ · 
75. 
. 
A. k. Gupta, for the Appellant. 
S. T. Desdi and R. B. ,D'a(ar for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by. 
~HINGHAL, J .-This appeal_, by special leave, is dire"cted agafust 
the summary dismissal of defendant Piiffey Lal's second appeal on 
Augtist 13, 1975. 
A..; the leave has been limited to tM question 
of i_nterprefatioi\ of Clauses (a) a,nd, (b). of seCtion 30 of the U.P. 
C-Offsolidatiofi of Holdings Act, 1953, (hereinafter referred to 
as 
the Act), "for the purpose of deciding whether the liability of the 
petitioner to specifically perform the contract of sale . of the 
old 
holding was transferred to the new 'chak' allotted to hiiri oh con-
solidation," it will be enough to state the facts which he'at on it. 
G 
H 
A 
•C 
D 
H 
916 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1977] 2 s.c.R. 
Respondent Hori Lal raised the suit for specific performance of 
an agreement dated March 6, 1966, for the sale of six plate of land 
measuring nine high and six biswas in village Hathiawali, 
Tehsil 
Gannaur. It was alleged in the plaint that Rs. 3000/- were paid 
by the plaintiff Hori Lal in advance, and the balance of Rs. 2000/-
was to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed, within 
one year of the agreement. It was also pleaded that as defendant 
Piarey Lal refused to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff was driven 
to the necessity of filing the suit for specific performance of the agree-
ment for sale and, in the alternative, for the recovery of Rs. 3000/-
which had been paid as advance. 
Defendant Piarey Lal denied the 
execution of the agreement for sale and the receipt of Rs. 3000/-, 
and pleaded that as new plots had been allotted as a result of the 
consolidation of his holding under the Act, he could not perform the 
agreement for sale. 
The trial coun framed issues, inter alia, on ques-
tions. relating to the execution of the agreement .for sale, payment of 
Rs. 3000/- to the defendant, and the inability of the defendant to 
perform the contract. 
That court held that the plaintiff had proved 
the agreement for sale and the payment of Rs. 3000/-. It also held 
that the agreement for sale could be "enforced for plots allotted to 
the defendant in lieu of plot mentioned in the agreement in consoli-
dation." It therefore decreed the suit for specific performance by 
its judgment dated August 23, 1973. 
The Second Additional District 
Jiudge, Badaun, upheld the decree, and as the High Court has dis-
mi'ssed the second appeal as aforesaid, d~fendant Piarey Lal has come 
to this Court for a redress of hi's grievance by special leave. 
As
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.