9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (4) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 26, 1956 Pt. Prem Raj, the appellant entered into an agreement with Shri Moti Ram Bhalla, respondent no. 2 for the purchase of lands from Shri Lila Ram, father of the appellant at the price of ₹ 1025/- perbigha on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. On December 18, 1956, the appellant and respondent no. 2 entered into a partnership to carry on the business of buying and selling lands and developing, the same under the name and style of L.M.G. Colonisers Traders . Subsequently, on January 2, 1957 the said firm L.M.G. Colonisers Traders entered into a deed of partnership with D.L.F. Housing Construction (P) Ltd., respondent no. 1 herein to carry on the business of purchasing and developing the lands into a residential ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s lands to the said new partnership firm and there was a fresh agreement by Lila Ram to sell the same lands to D.L.F. Housing and Construction (Private) Ltd., respondent no. 1 at a certain price and out of the land thus to be bought, respondent no. I agreed to sell 22 plots of land to the appellant. After about 3 years, on or about June 8, 1961, the appellant gave notice to respondent no. 1 repudiating the arrangement dated June 11, 1958 as void and claimed that the documents were not binding upon him. The appellant alleged that the deeds executed on June, 11, 1958 were unlawful and void and inoperative against him as they were executed as a result of undue influence and coercion exercised upon him. In the alternative the appellant prayed f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce should be granted if the Court did not accept his case that the impugned agreement dated June 11, 1958 was illegal and void. It is true that under 0. 7, r. 7, Civil Procedure Code it is open to a plaintiff to pray for inconsistent reliefs. But it must be shown by the plaintiff that each of such pleas is maintainable. So far as the relief of specific performance is concerned, the matter must be examined in the light of the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. In this connection reference may be made to s. 37 of the Specific Relief Act (Act No. 1 of 1877) which is to the following effect : A plaintiff instituting a suit for the specific performance of a contract in writing may pray in the, alternative that, if the contract cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been in possession, this alternative claim may embrace an account of the rents and profits. Bu t, for the reason already stated, a suit to set aside a transaction for fraud or, in the alternative, for specific performance of a compromise could not be sustained in the Court of Chancery. And notwithstanding the provisions of the Rules of the Supreme Court as to alternative claims for relief, it seems probable that the same conclusion would still be arrived at, on the ground that the claims were inconsistent and embarrassing. The same principle is enunciated in Cawley v. Poole ) 71 E. R. 23 in which it was held by the Court of Chancery that in a case where a bill alleges a judgment obtained by fraud, and a subsequent compromise, and see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsisting. He had in that suit to allege, and if the fact was traversed, he was required to prove a continuous readiness and willingness, from the date of the contract to the time of the hearing, to perform the contract on his part. Failure to make good that averment brought with it the inevitable dismissal of his suit. Thus it was that the commencement of an action for damages being, on the principle of such cases as Clough v. London and North Western Rly. Co. (1871) L.R. 7 Ex. 261, and Law v. Law [(1904) 1 Ch. 140], a definite election to treat the contract as at an end, no suit for specific performance, whatever happened to the action, could thereafter be maintained by the aggrieved plaintiff. He had, by his election precluded himself ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have dismissed the suit at a preliminary stage so far as relief for specific performance was concerned. We do not think there is any substance in this argument. The question of election between the two reliefs would have arisen only if the appellant could have shown that in respect of specific performance he had a cause of action. As we have already pointed out, the appellant has not made out a cause of action so far as the relief of specific performance is concerned and hence the appellant is not entitled to be put to election with regard to the two alternative reliefs. We accordingly reject the argument of the appellant on this aspect of the case. Lastly, it was argued on behalf of the appellant that the High Court had no jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
