w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Ram Karan and Others v/s Govind Lal and Another


Company & Directors' Information:- C. LAL LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909HR2012PLC046499

Company & Directors' Information:- KARAN & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31909DL1996PTC079165

Company & Directors' Information:- KARAN & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100DL1996PTC079165

    Civil Second Appeal No 402 of 1998

    Decided On, 20 August 1998

    At, High Court of Rajasthan

    By, THE HON'BLE JUSTICE ARUN MADAN

    Mahesh Sharma, Mahesh Gupta



Judgment Text

1. This appeal has been heard finally at the admission stage itself. Since the parties are duly represented by their counsel.

2. The background in the context of which the present appeal has been filed briefly stated is that the appellant-plaintiffs (hereinafter to be referred to as "plaintiffs") instituted a civil suit before Civil Judge (J.D.), Baran titled Ram Karan and others v. Govind Lal vide Civil Suit No. 157/81 (125/92) on the allegations that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 Govind Lal and his mother late Smt. Ram Kawari Bai had jointly executed an agreement for sale of the agricultural land falling in Khasra Nos. 274 measuring 26 bighas 18 biswas in village Ghorigaon, Tehsil Mangrol, District Baran in consideration of Rs. 5000/-, hence a lawful contract came into force between the parties w.e.f. 24-4-1966. This fact is also borne out from the certified copy of the aforesaid agreement which has been shown to this Court during the course of hearing of this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellants. It was further contended in the plaint that after the death of mother of defendant No. 1 Govind Lal, the plaintiffs had served a notice upon the defendants through their counsel on 1-9-1981 to get the sale agreement registered and for specific performance of the contract, since the respondent had wilfully and for reasons best known to him had failed to execute the sale-deed notwithstanding having received the consideration of Rs. 5000/- in lieu of the sale of the aforesaid land but had mala fide intention of not passing over the legal title to the plaintiff, since evidently he was waiting for acceleration of the price of land and his intention had changed which resulted in filing of the aforesaid suit for specific performance by the plaintiffs. It is noteworthy to mention that prior to the institution of the suit for specific performance by the plaintiff, the respondent with mala fide and ulterior motive had also filed a suit for recovery of possession of the land in question from the plaintiffs, since obviously he had no intention to execute the sale-deed. In a suit for specific performance instituted on the basis of a duly executed agreement to sell, the basic requirement of law which the Civil Court at the first instance should appreciate is the intention of the party vendor who had sold the land and received full consideration in lieu of the said sale and also as to whether he has any intention to pass on a lawful and valid title to the vendee i.e. buyer and this aspect is also to be seen on the basis of the evidence adduced during trial by either party to the case. In this case it is an admitted fact that the agreement to sell was lawfully executed between the parties on 24-4-1966 and what has to be seen is the conduct of the vendor, i.e., seller after the execution of the agreement of sale. Rather from the evidence on the record and also the pleadings of the parties it is fully borne out that the respondent had absolutely no intention to execute the sale-deed in favour of the appellant notwithstanding having received full sale consideration, since otherwise nothing would have impelled him to institute a suit for recovery of possession of that very land to which earlier he was willing party for sale. The conduct of the respondent in my view deserves to be highly deprecated and this deplorable conduct which vitiates the very letter and spirit of the agreement to sell, since the appellant at no stage had expressed his unwillingness to get the sale-deed lawfully executed before the Registrar of Properties. This fact is also borne out from the notice which the appellant served on the respondent through his counsel after having waited all through during the period 24-4-1966 to 19-6-1981 when the legal notice was served and thereafter having received no positive reply from the respondent he ultimately filed a suit for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement in the Civil Court as on 13-11-1981.

3. From the perusal of para 10 of the written statement filed by respondent before the trial Court it is revealed that the respondent had made an averment that the land is ancestral and belongs to undivided Hindu family and was not meant for benefit of the family. It had further been averred that Ram Kuwari Bai, defendant No. 2, had no authority vested in her to enter into agreement of sale with the appellants for the aforesaid land and even if any such agreement had been entered into between the parties it shall have no consequential effect upon the rights of the parties.

4. The aforesaid averment has surprisingly been made by that very individual who is signatory to the aforesaid agreement to sell which was lawfully entered into between the parties way back on 24-4-1966 and at such a belated stage there is a sweeping change in her mind and intention to have woken up from the slumber and she consequently thought of walking away from her responsibilities towards the appellant as regards the agreement of sale which though was executed by the appellant in her favour. If such is the conduct and attitude of the parties then no citizen in my view, will feel safe to enter into transactions involving monetary considerations by which the legal obligations of the parties are depending upon for their lawful enforcement or compliance. It is precisely for this reason that the legislature in its wisdom had rightly thought of introducing the legislation i.e., the Specific Relief Act (Act No. 47 of 1963) with a view to safeguard the rights, title and interest of those parties who may enter into genuine transactions for enforcing their rights by executing the sale agreement on the basis of duly executed contract of sale. From the perusal of aims and objects of the said legislation it is apparent from the preamble of the Act "to define and amend the law relating to certain kinds of specific reliefs". The Act is founded on the principle of equitable jurisprudence and on the maxim "that he too had committed inequity shall not have equity". The remedies for the non-performance of a duty enforceable by law are either compensatory or specific i.e., specific enforcement of lawful agreement duly executed between the parties and acted upon. While compensatory remedy comes by way of award of damages. As regards the specific remedy is concerned it is to be enforced by directing the defaulting party to do or forbear the very thing which he is bound to do or forbear and in the case of disobedience, by imprisonment or attachment of his property or both. We have to bear in mind the above background of the legislature in the aforesaid legislation was enacted solely with a view to safeguard the rights, title and interests of the innocent parties who get involved in the acts of betrayal by the defaulting parties such as the respondents in the present case. It is a matter of surprise that the salient aspect of the matter had not been gone into either by the trial Court or by the first appellate Court and concurrent findings of fact have been recorded and drawn on illogical presumption and conclusions have been arrived at by the learned Civil Judge without examining either the salient aspects of the clauses of the agreement in question nor the binding effect of the corresponding legal obligations which the respondent was bound to perform qua the appellant-plaintiffs in lawful discharge of his duties.

5. As regards the question of limitation and maintainability of the suit, learned counsel for the respondents during the course of hearing, vehemently contended at the bar that the suit for specific performance giving rise to the present appeal was hopelessly barred by limitation inasmuch as while the agreement was executed as on 24-4-1966, the suit was instituted on 13-11-1981. While Article 54 of the stipulates three years as the date fixed for performance, or if no such date is fixed when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused. In the instant case in my humble opinion the limitation of three years would not be applicable since there was no clause in the agreement stipulating the time for execution of the sale-deed being the essence of the contract, hence the limitation of three years for the purpose of institution of a suit of such nature would not be relevant and the only logical conclusion as regards the period of limitation of three years would be the date from the accrual of cause of action which in the instant case should obviously be construed as the date when the notice for justice demand was served on the respondent by the plaintiffs i.e. 19-6-1981 while the suit was filed on 13-11-1981. Hence the suit is obviously within the period of limitation and the trial Court has already recorded a well reasoned finding in this regard which has been upheld by the first appellate Court of the Addl. District Judge, Baran vide impugned order, dated 3rd August, 1994.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his proposition has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of K. S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan,1997 AIR(SC) 1751. I have examined the ratio of the said decision and in my view the same is neither attracted nor is applicable to this case.

7. Since delay is attributed to the conduct of the respondent-defendant himself which has been responsible for the same in having wilfully avoided the execution of the sale deed though he was signatory to the agreement of sale and after having received the full sale consideration has avoided to do so. In this context it is relevant to mention Section 10 of the which mandates the following situation in which the specific performance of an agreement may be enforced :

"Sec. 10- Cases in which specific performance of contract enforceable- Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the specific performance of any contract may, in the discretion of the Court, be enforced --

(b) When the act agreed to be done is such that compensation in money for its non-performance would not afford adequate relief."*

8. In the instant case since there

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damages caused by the non-performance of the act agreed to be done between the parties and the act agreed to be done is of such a nature that compensation by way of damages would not be a substitute to the execution of the sale-deed. I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to enforce the specific performance of the agreement dated 24-4-1966 by executing a sale-deed in respect of the land falling in Khasra No. 274 measuring 26 bighas and 18 biswas. The parties are directed to appear before the Registrar of Properties, District Baran where the aforesaid land is situated positively within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order failing which the Registrar of Properties, Baran is directed to get the sale-deed lawfully executed between the parties within a period of 30 days thereafter in accordance with law. It is further directed that necessary expenditure towards stamp duty shall be borne by the appellants. There will be no order as to costs. The appeal is allowed and stands accordingly disposed of. Appeal allowed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

17-07-2020 Pyare Lal Versus State of Haryana Supreme Court of India
29-06-2020 Mohan Lal Jain Versus Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India & Another High Court of Delhi
26-06-2020 Amrut Lal @ Amrit Lal Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
25-06-2020 H. Karan Kumar Versus The State Government of Karnataka, Represented by its Secretary, Bangalore & Another High Court of Karnataka
23-06-2020 Munna Lal Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical & Health Lko & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
19-06-2020 Vipin Kumar Choudhary Versus Makhan Lal Chaturvedi National University Of Journalism & Communication - Bhopal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-06-2020 Jivan Lal Verma Versus Kishan Agrotek National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
11-06-2020 Moti Lal @ Moti Lal Patwa Versus Union of India, Ministry of Finance through the Director, Enforcement Directorate, Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Patna
03-06-2020 Latelraj Suryawanshi (Latelram Suryawanshi wrongly mentioned in the impugned judgment) Versus Hori Lal Tamboli & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
27-05-2020 Karan Seth Versus UOI & Others High Court of Delhi
21-05-2020 Aravapalli Krishna Murthy Versus Syed Lal Saheb Died & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
20-05-2020 Karan Alias Kalyan Versus State (NCT of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
20-05-2020 Diwari Lal & Others Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
14-05-2020 Meena Sharma Versus Nand Lal & Another High Court of Delhi
08-05-2020 Karan Seth Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
08-05-2020 Mohan Lal Versus State of NCT of Delhi Supreme Court of India
30-04-2020 Jagdish Lal Versus State of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
20-04-2020 Babu Lal Versus State (N.C.T. of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
24-03-2020 Babu Lal & Others Versus Para Devi & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
17-03-2020 Meghna Singh (Through: Her Natural Guardian) Avita D Lal Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Another High Court of Delhi
17-03-2020 The Joint Labour Commissioner and Registering Officer & Another Versus Kesar Lal Supreme Court of India
11-03-2020 Ram Dulari & Another Versus Ram Lal & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
27-02-2020 Manohar Lal Versus State Of Himachal Pradesh High Court of Himachal Pradesh
26-02-2020 M/s. Kiran Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. Through Director Manohar Lal Ahuja, Uttar Pradesh Versus Yashpal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-02-2020 M/s. Girdhari Lal Constructions (P) Ltd. Dwaraka, New Delhi, Registered Office Bhatinda, Punjab, Represented by Its Director, Vikas Mehta Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Housing & Urban Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
18-02-2020 Dr. Hira Lal Versus State of Bihar & Others Supreme Court of India
14-02-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney, Manager, Delhi Versus Chaman Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Vikas Panchayat, Gram Boheda Through Sarpanch, Rajasthan Versus Badri Lal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-02-2020 Ashok Alias Gore Lal Veruss State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
11-02-2020 Kanhaiya Lal Versus Lala Ram & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-02-2020 Heera Lal Versus State High Court of Rajasthan
05-02-2020 Chhotey Lal @ Chottu Versus State High Court of Delhi
29-01-2020 Karnveer Singh Versus Panji Lal Damor High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
28-01-2020 Mohit Lal Ghosh Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
27-01-2020 M/s. Urban Umbrella Development And Management Company Through Its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory, Punjab V/S Pawan Lal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-01-2020 Chuni Lal Versus Munshi Ram & Another Supreme Court of India
24-01-2020 Lal Mohammed Versus State (Nct of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
23-01-2020 Bajrang Lal Sharma Versus C.K. Mathew & Others Supreme Court of India
21-01-2020 Kishan Lal Chadha @ Krishan Lal Chadha (Deceased) Versus Anup Chadha High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-01-2020 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Orissa Versus Achhey Lal High Court of Chhattisgarh
16-01-2020 Rattan Lal Bharadwaj Versus Magma Financial Corporation Ltd. & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
08-01-2020 Shyam Lal Jayaswal Versus Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
06-01-2020 Udhav Lal Versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through- Police Station Sarangarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
03-01-2020 State Bank of India V/S Nand Lal Sokhal and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Jaipur
02-01-2020 Manori Lal & Another Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-12-2019 Manik Lal Das Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
04-12-2019 State of Punjab Versus Kashmiri Lal @ Sheera High Court of Punjab and Haryana
29-11-2019 Chumman Lal Sahu & Another Versus Gopal Ji Singh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
21-11-2019 Sham Lal Chabba Versus Om Prakash & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
20-11-2019 Chaitu Lal Versus State of Uttarakhand Supreme Court of India
15-11-2019 Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) Versus Abhilash Lal & Others Supreme Court of India
15-11-2019 The Management of M/s. Birla Te Versus Chunni Lal High Court of Delhi
13-11-2019 Montu Lal Das Gupta V/S The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, to the Government of India, Ministry of Health, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
11-11-2019 The State of Maharashtra Versus Mohammed Ibrahim Lal Mohammed & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-11-2019 Parvati Mohta Through Legal Representatives Versus Mohan Lal Sukhadia University High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
08-11-2019 Avijit Mitra & Others Versus Shankar Lal Roy High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
05-11-2019 Heera Lal Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
04-11-2019 Shyambai Versus Shankar Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
25-10-2019 Joint Labour Commissioner & Registering Officer & Another Versus Kesar Lal National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-10-2019 Indore Development Authority Versus Manohar Lal & Others Supreme Court of India
22-10-2019 Pratap Lal Teli Versus The State of Maharashtra, through the Public Prosecutor, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-10-2019 Hori Lal & Another Versus State of Uttar Pradesh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
18-10-2019 Jawahar Lal Jaiswal Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
18-10-2019 Gopi Lal Sahu Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
09-10-2019 Roshan Lal Versus Delhi Jal Board High Court of Delhi
04-10-2019 Ravi Setia Versus Madan Lal & Others Supreme Court of India
26-09-2019 Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption U.P State Cons. & Infra. Versus M/s. Reham Foundation Kandhari Lane Lal Bagh, Lucknow High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
25-09-2019 Rakesh Goel Versus Hira Lal ( Now Deceased) & Another High Court of Delhi
24-09-2019 Sri Ananta Prasad Sahu @ Sri Ananta Lal Sahu Versus Sri Gopal Sahu @ Sri Golao Lal Sahu High Court of Gauhati
18-09-2019 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Rameshwar Lal & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-09-2019 Anshuman Dubey & Another Versus Jawahar Lal Nehru University & Others High Court of Delhi
16-09-2019 Vinod Madan Lal Nawandhar Versus Vidisha Garg & Others High Court of Delhi
13-09-2019 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Khem Karan & Others High Court of Delhi
11-09-2019 Ami Lal Versus Commandant, 52nd Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Manipur & Another High Court of Orissa
09-09-2019 Malkit Kaur Versus Joginder Lal Khurana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-09-2019 Jai Karan Singh & Another Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
06-09-2019 Chaman Lal Mittal Versus Kamini Sharma High Court of Delhi
05-09-2019 Laxman Lal Latta Versus Kamlesh Parmar & Others High Court of Rajasthan
03-09-2019 Pritam Lal Makhija Versus Akhil Bhartiya Aggarwal Sammelan Thr its Joint Organised Secretary Virender Gupta High Court of Delhi
02-09-2019 Shiv Lal Versus Om Parkash Kashyap High Court of Delhi
02-09-2019 Bharat Lal Meena Versus State of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
22-08-2019 Dilip Kumar Mahesh Versus Sundar Lal Maurya High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
21-08-2019 Sunder Lal Versus State High Court of Delhi
20-08-2019 Mewa Lal Choudhary Versus Union of India High Court of Judicature at Patna
13-08-2019 Dhanpat Lal Sharma Versus Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
08-08-2019 Hazari Lal Versus Superintending Canal Officer, Bhakra Water Services, Sirsa & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-08-2019 Nand Lal & Others Versus Bhakra Beas Management Board & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
06-08-2019 Dev Karan @ Lambu Versus State of Haryana Supreme Court of India
05-08-2019 Panna Lal Gaur & Another Versus State of U.P. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
01-08-2019 Moti Lal Daga & Another Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others High Court of Delhi
01-08-2019 Basant Lal Memorial College of Education Versus National Council For Teacher Education & Others High Court of Delhi
31-07-2019 Jage Ram Karan Singh & Another Versus State & Another High Court of Delhi
29-07-2019 Rajasthan Housing Board Versus Roshan Lal Saini & Others Supreme Court of India
24-07-2019 Bhajan Lal & Others Versus North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Others High Court of Delhi
23-07-2019 Surinder Pal Soni V/S Sohan Lal (D) thru L.R. and Others. Supreme Court of India
23-07-2019 Surinder Pal Soni Versus Sohan Lal (D) Thru Lr & Others Supreme Court of India
22-07-2019 Manik Lal Prasad Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
18-07-2019 Dr. Shankar Lal Garg Versus Kuladhipati, Vikram University & Others High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
11-07-2019 Jagdish Lal & Others Versus Ram Chander & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
10-07-2019 Hiru & Others Versus Mansa Ram (deceased) through his LRs Chaman Lal & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh