1999 (8) TMI 1008 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the agreement dated 18-7-1956 and subsequent agreements.
2. Termination of tenancy and arrears of rent.
3. Specific performance of the contract.
4. Jurisdiction and findings of the High Court.
5. Plea under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act.
6. Execution of the High Court's decree.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Agreement Dated 18-7-1956 and Subsequent Agreements:
The agreement dated 18-7-1956 between Phool Chand and Thawar Das involved the sale of a lime factory and a lease of the land. Thawar Das failed to purchase the land within the stipulated four years. The plea of a fresh agreement dated 19-9-1966 was found to be false and fabricated by both the trial court and the first appellate court.

2. Termination of Tenancy and Arrears of Rent:
Phool Chand served a demand-cum-quit notice u/s 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and ejectment. The courts found that the tenancy was duly and validly terminated.

3. Specific Performance of the Contract:
Thawar Das filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 18-7-1956, which was dismissed by the trial court and the first appellate court. The courts held that Thawar Das was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

4. Jurisdiction and Findings of the High Court:
The High Court allowed the appeals by Thawar Das, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, and decreed the suit for specific performance. The Supreme Court found the High Court's judgment to suffer from serious infirmities and to have exercised jurisdiction not vested in it u/s 100 of the CPC. The High Court did not frame any substantial questions of law and reappreciated evidence improperly.

5. Plea Under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act:
The High Court allowed the plea u/s 53-A, which was not raised in the pleadings or before the lower courts. The Supreme Court held that this plea involves a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be raised for the first time in a second appeal. Thawar Das failed to prove his willingness to perform the contract, which is essential for the plea of part performance.

6. Execution of the High Court's Decree:
The High Court's decree was executed, and a sale deed was executed through court intervention. The Supreme Court held that the execution of the decree does not bar the right to prosecute the appeal, especially since the appeal was filed before the execution.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment and decree of the High Court, and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court as affirmed by the District Judge. The appellant was entitled to costs throughout in both appeals.