1915 (11) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the title transfer to Ramsundar Saha.
2. Enforceability of the contract between Ramkumar Saha and the District Board.
3. Implied rescission of the contract by a substituted agreement or abandonment.
4. Entitlement to specific performance or refund of the deposit.
5. Costs and procedural issues.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Title Transfer to Ramsundar Saha:
The title vested absolutely in the District Board under Section 16 of Act I of 1894 when possession was taken by the Collector. The sale certificate and release executed in favor of Ramsundar Saha were deemed invalid as they did not comply with Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, which requires a registered instrument for the sale of tangible immovable property valued at Rs. 100 and upwards. Furthermore, neither document fulfilled Rule 98 of the Statutory Rules, which mandates that every transfer of immovable property vested in a Board must be made by an instrument under the common seal, signed by the Chairman and two members of the Board. The appellants' arguments that Rules 93 and 98 were ultra vires or merely directory were rejected. The Court held that these rules were intra vires and mandatory, emphasizing that statutory prescriptions for acts and contracts of a public body are imperative and essential to their validity.

2. Enforceability of the Contract Between Ramkumar Saha and the District Board:
The Court found that there was an enforceable contract between Ramkumar Saha and the District Board. The initial offer on 31st August 1898 to re-convey the land to Ramkumar Saha upon payment of Rs. 25 was accepted when he made the deposit on 6th September 1898. This constituted an enforceable contract as per Rule 102 of the Statutory Rules, which requires contracts involving sums exceeding Rs. 50 to be in writing and signed by the Chairman or Vice-Chairman. The Vice-Chairman was presumed to have the authority to make the offer, and the contract did not require a seal for validity.

3. Implied Rescission of the Contract by a Substituted Agreement or Abandonment:
The Court examined whether the original contract was rescinded by a subsequent agreement or abandonment. It concluded that the second agreement on 4th December 1900, which involved a larger sum for the entire land, did not rescind the original agreement as it was more comprehensive and not inconsistent with the first agreement. Additionally, the second agreement was inoperative in law due to non-compliance with Rule 103. The Court also found no evidence of abandonment by Ramkumar Saha, as his applications for a refund did not indicate an intention to rescind the contract. The District Board's conduct was inconsistent with the theory of rescission, and the contract remained valid and enforceable.

4. Entitlement to Specific Performance or Refund of the Deposit:
The Court held that Ramkumar Saha was entitled to specific performance of the contract dated 6th September 1898. The District Board was directed to execute a conveyance in his favor, and his possession of the land was confirmed. Additionally, Ramkumar Saha was awarded a decree for Rs. 957-11-1, the amount deposited on 4th December 1900, with interest from the date of deposit to the date of realization. The second agreement was deemed unenforceable, and the District Board was not entitled to retain the money paid under it.

5. Costs and Procedural Issues:
The Court addressed the costs and procedural issues, noting that the District Board's unbusinesslike conduct had prolonged the litigation. The District Board was ordered to pay the costs of Ramkumar Saha in the primary Court and the Court of the District Judge. The appeals by Ramsundar Saha's representatives were dismissed with costs, and the cross-objections by Ramkumar Saha were allowed, securing his title against the subsequent purchaser. The Court emphasized that the District Board's failure to execute the conveyance and their inconsistent actions had caused undue hardship to Ramkumar Saha.

Summary of Decision:
Appeals Nos. 1979, 1980, and 1981 of 1912 were dismissed with costs. Appeal No. 1243 was dismissed, but the cross-objections were allowed, and the decree of the District Judge was discharged. The suit (No. 435 of 1909) was decreed in favor of Ramkumar Saha for specific performance of the contract of sale, with the District Board directed to execute a conveyance. Ramkumar Saha's possession was confirmed, and he was awarded Rs. 957-11-1 with interest. The costs in the primary Court and the Court of the District Judge were to be paid by the District Board, and the costs in this Court were to be paid by the other defendants. The cause title of the plaint was amended to correctly describe the District Board of Chittagong.