Hazari Lal (Dead) Thr. Lrs vs Ramesh Kumar

2023 INSC 1001 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5315 OF 2010

HAZARI LAL (DEAD) THR. LRS. … Appellant(s)

VERSUS

RAMESH KUMAR & OTHERS … Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

1. The defendant has filed the present appeal impugning the

judgment of the High Court1 whereby the Second Appeal2 filed by the

appellant herein was dismissed.

2. The suit3 filed by the respondents for specific performance

of agreement to sell was decreed by the Trial Court 4 vide judgment

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN Date: 2023.11.11 12:25:15 IST Reason: 1 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 2 Second Appeal No. 96 of 2010 3 O.S. No.327 of 1999 4 Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad

1 dated 09.04.2007. The order was upheld in First Appeal and the Second

Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

appellant purchased House Nos. 259 and 260 from the owners thereof

vide registered sale deed dated 06.07.1999. Thereafter, the

respondents filed a civil suit in July 1999, praying for specific

performance of agreement to sell dated 24.09.1986 executed by the

vendors-defendants No. 1 to 4, in favour of the respondents and

challenging the sale deed dated 06.07.1999 executed in favour of the

appellant. In terms of the agreement to sell allegedly executed by the

vendors in favour of the respondents, three properties bearing House

Nos. 258, 259 and 260, situated at Sadar Bazar, Allahabad were agreed

to be sold to the respondents for a total sale consideration of

₹55,000/-. Earnest money of ₹5,000/- was paid. It was agreed that the

sale deed will be registered after getting permission from the Ceiling

Department. The vendee was to be informed by the vendors after

getting permission from the Ceiling Department. Six months’ time was

granted for getting the sale deed registered on payment of balance

sale consideration after information of permission is given. The

contention is that no permission as such was required for getting the

sale deed registered from the Ceiling Department and in fact the

2 vendors had never applied for that. As the vendee, namely, Mewa Lal

(predecessor-in-interest of the respondents) had failed to get the sale

deed registered in more than twelve years or take any action against

the vendor to comply with the terms of agreement, the vendors sold

House Nos. 259 and 260 to the appellant vide registered sale deed

dated 06.07.1999. The appellant claimed he was tenant in the aforesaid

two houses.

4. He further submitted that no permission was required from

the Ceiling Department. None was taken by the vendor even at the time

of getting the sale deed registered in favour of the appellant after the

family division. To ensure title of the vendor, the appellant had even

got the title verification of the property for the last twelve years through

his counsel. Immediately after the sale deed for House Nos. 259 and 260

was registered in favour of the appellant, the successors-in-interest of

the vendee- late Mewa Lal, filed a civil suit seeking enforcement of

agreement to sell dated 24.09.1986 and challenging the sale deed

dated 06.07.1999 regarding House Nos. 259 and 260 in favour of the

appellant. He further submitted that draft sale deed was prepared with

reference to House No. 258 in favour of Ramesh Kumar son of late Mewa

Lal on 8.7.1999, however the same was not registered. He submitted

that certificate of title verification of the property in dispute by the

3 counsel was wrongly rejected by the courts below on the plea taken by

him regarding he being the bona fide purchaser of the property.

Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate who had conducted the title

verification, appeared as DW-3. In fact, House Nos. 259 and 260 were

sold to the appellant because he was tenant in those houses. The

respondents had not been able to prove their possession in those two

houses. Finally after decreeing the suit, the Trial Court held that there

would be relationship of landlord and tenant between the respondents

and the appellant. He further submitted that there was huge delay in

filing the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated

24.09.1986 as the same was filed in July 1999, especially when no

permission was required from the Ceiling Department and the

predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, who was the vendee to

agreement to sell had not taken any steps to enforce the agreement or

press upon the vendor to take steps for getting the permission of the

Ceiling Department, which in fact was not required. The order was

upheld by the first appellate court. Even the High Court failed to

appreciate the legal arguments raised by the appellant. The appeal was

dismissed by a short order.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that there is no error in the judgments and decrees passed

4 by the courts below. The agreement to sell dated 24.09.1986 executed

by the vendors in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the

respondents was well within the knowledge of the appellant and

despite that he got the sale deed registered with reference to two

houses bearing Nos. 259 and 260. He has not been able to prove on

record that there was proper verification of the title of the vendor and

there is no error in the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court,

as upheld upto the High Court. There was no delay in filing of the suit

as it was to be filed within six months from the date intimation regarding

permission from Ceiling Department was given. The same was never

conveyed. However, the counsel had no answer to the argument of the

appellant that no such permission was required.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

7. The facts of the case, as are available on record, are that

there was an agreement to sell dated 24.09.1986 executed in favour of

Mewa Lal predecessor -in-interest of the respondents, who expired on

28.7.1998. One of the term in the agreement to sell provided that the

sale deed will be registered within six months from the date the vendor

informs the vendee about the permission taken from the Ceiling

Department for the property in question. Total sale consideration

5 agreed was ₹56,000/-, out of which only ₹5,000/- were paid as earnest

money. The claim sought to be made by the predecessor-in-interest of

the respondents was that he was in possession of the three houses

agreed to be sold to him. However, the Trail Court in its judgment found

the claim to be not tenable. Rather, it found that House Nos. 259 and 260

were in possession of the appellant and his predecessor-in-interest for

a long time. Further, the fact remains that for enforcement of the

agreement to sell dated 24.09.1986, civil suit was filed in July 1999 after

the sale deed pertaining to two houses bearing Nos. 259 and 260 was

registered on 6.7.1999 leaving only House No. 258 which was in

possession of the deceased-Mewa Lal. It was for a total sale

consideration of ₹86,000/-.

8. The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant

that no permission as such was required from the Ceiling Department

was not refuted by learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 10. The

fact also remains that in case such a permission was required, and

vendors had not taken any steps within reasonable period after

execution of agreement to sell on 24.09.1986, the vendee should have

taken remedial measures and not waited for thirteen long years.

Another undisputed fact remains that even at the time of getting the sale

deed of House Nos. 259 and 260 registered in his favour, no such

6 permission was obtained by the Vendor, hence action for enforcement

of agreement to sell dated 24.09.1986 should have been taken within

limitation from that date instead of waiting indefinitely by paying a

meagre amount of ₹5,000/- as earnest money out of total sale

consideration of ₹55,000/-. The aforesaid inaction on the part of the

vendee during his life time for a period of twelve years certainly goes

against him considered in the light of the fact that the civil suit was filed

in July, 1999 after the sale deed for two houses bearing Nos. 259 and

260, which were in possession of the appellant was registered. The

vendors in their stand had even disputed readiness and willingness of

the plaintiffs to get the sale deed registered. DW1-Prem Prakash in his

examination-in-chief and cross-examination had categorically stated

that he had never applied to seek permission from the Ceiling

Department to sell the property. Even at that stage, the plaintiffs had

not put any specific question to DW1 that permission, in fact, was

required.

9. In view of our aforesaid discussion, the judgments and

decrees passed by the courts below enforcing the agreement to sell

dated 24.09.1986 in a civil suit filed in July, 1999 cannot be legally

sustained. The same are, accordingly, set aside. The suit filed by the

respondents is dismissed.

7

10. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

…..……………….J (VIKRAM NATH)

…………………..J (RAJESH BINDAL)

New Delhi October 04, 2023.

8