1985 (5) TMI 255 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Specific performance of an agreement to sell.
2. Attachment and sale of evacuee property.
3. Application of res judicata.
4. Interpretation and application of various ordinances and acts related to evacuee property.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Specific performance of an agreement to sell:
Sardar Mela Singh and Sardar Hari Singh, who jointly owned an Ice Factory, entered into an agreement on August 6, 1947, to sell half of their interest to Saghir Ahmed for Rs. 90,000, receiving Rs. 5,000 as advance. Saghir Ahmed failed to pay the balance and complete the sale within the stipulated time. Consequently, they filed a suit for specific performance and sought a decree for the remaining Rs. 85,000 and Rs. 5,000 as compensation. The court decreed in their favor on November 20, 1947, directing Saghir Ahmed to pay Rs. 86,000 along with costs. During the suit, Jaswant Singh was assigned Sardar Mela Singh's interest, making him a decree-holder.

2. Attachment and sale of evacuee property:
The properties of Saghir Ahmed, who had become an evacuee, were attached before judgment and later sold in execution. The Custodian of Evacuee Property claimed that the attached properties were evacuee properties under the East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 1947, and thus exempt from attachment. The court initially dismissed this claim, but after amendments to the Act and subsequent ordinances, the Custodian filed multiple applications to set aside the sale, arguing that the properties vested in the Custodian and were protected from attachment and sale.

3. Application of res judicata:
The appellants argued that the order dated March 28, 1949, which dismissed the Custodian's application under the East Punjab Act, should bar any subsequent proceedings based on the principle of res judicata. The court, however, noted that the cause of action for the Custodian's new application arose only after the promulgation of Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949, which provided broader grounds for setting aside the sale. The court held that the new legal provisions conferred a new right on the Custodian, and thus the subsequent proceedings were not barred by res judicata.

4. Interpretation and application of various ordinances and acts related to evacuee property:
The court examined several legal provisions, including:
- East Punjab Evacuees' (Administration of Property) Act, 1947: The initial application by the Custodian was dismissed because the properties were attached before December 31, 1947.
- Ordinance No. XII of 1949 and Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949: These ordinances, particularly Section 17(2) of Ordinance No. XXVII of 1949, provided that any transfer of evacuee property under court orders after August 14, 1947, could be set aside if applied for within three months of the ordinance's commencement.
- Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950: Replaced the ordinances and included similar provisions, with the crucial date changed to March 1, 1947.

The court found that the Custodian's application under the new ordinances was valid and not barred by the previous order. The Division Bench's decision to set aside the sale was affirmed, noting that the Custodian's application was grounded in new legal provisions that were not available during the initial proceedings.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Division Bench's decision to set aside the court sale. The court clarified that setting aside the sale did not preclude the decree-holders from pursuing other remedies to recover the amounts due under the decree. All subsequent proceedings should be disposed of in accordance with the law. No order as to costs was made.