9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case include the application u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act for reference to arbitration of a dispute regarding an agreement of sale, denial of the existence of the agreement by one party, contention of misjoinder of parties, and the grant of interim injunction u/r 39, rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code. Application u/s 20 of the Arbitration Act: - Narain Dass and Sm. Jassi Devi sought reference to arbitration of a dispute with Khushal Chand Chandana regarding an agreement of sale. - Allegations were made that Khushal Chand executed a sale-deed with another party despite agreeing to sell the property to the petitioners. - The application was moved for reference of disputes under the agreement of sale to arbitration, which contained an arbitration clause for resolving such disputes. Denial of Agreement and Misjoinder of Parties: - Khushal Chand denied the existence of the agreement of sale and the arbitration agreement with the petitioners. - He contended that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioners were not agreeable or available at the time of drafting the agreement. - Khushal Chand also argued that the other respondents were not parties to the transactions, making the petition against them not maintainable. Grant of Interim Injunction: - The petitioners sought an interim injunction to prevent the mutation of the property in favor of another party until the main petition was disposed of. - The interim injunction was granted by the Additional District Judge based on a prima facie case and the balance of convenience in favor of the petitioners. - The respondent, Jiwan Dass Rawal, appealed against this order, leading to the current legal proceedings. Legal Position and Decision: - The court discussed the legal position that a contract for sale in India does not create an equitable estate in the purchaser, unlike in England. - It was emphasized that until a decree for specific performance is obtained, no interest in the property passes to the purchaser. - As a sale-deed had already been executed in favor of Jiwan Dass Rawal, the court concluded that Narain Dass and Sm. Jassi Devi could not prevent him from enjoying the fruits of the sale or taking possession of the property. - The revision was allowed based on the legal rights of the parties under the agreement of sale, highlighting that no title or interest had passed to the petitioners until specific performance was obtained.
|
