Act Sec. CitationStamp Act S 35 AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 1489Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 2009 (6) AIR Bom R 356 (Nagpur Bench)Limitation Act Art. 54 AIR 2008 (NOC) 506 (KAR.)

Limitation Act Art. 137 JT 2006 (6) SC 253Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits VaS. 47 AIR 2007 RAJASTHAN 47Rajasthan Court Fees and Suits VaS.11 AIR 1991 Raj 42Rajasthan Rent Control Act S. 15 AIR 2010 (NOC) 894 (RAJ.)Rajasthan Rent Control Act S. 15 AIR 2010 (NOC) 984 (RAJ.)Rajasthan Rent Control Act S.21(3), 15(6) and S. 9 AIR 2010 (NOC) 704 (RAJ.)Rajasthan Rent Control Act S. 15 AIR 2010 (NOC) 95 (RAJ.)Rajasthan Rent Control Act S. 13 AIR 2009 (NOC) 2615 (RAJ.)Rajasthan Rent Control Act S. 18 AIR 2009 RAJASTHAN 94Rajasthan Rent Control Act S. 15 AIR 2009 (NOC) 1598 (RAJ.)Rajasthan Rent Control Act S. 15 AIR 2009 (NOC) 1596 (RAJ.)Rajasthan Rent Control Act O. 8, R. 1 AIR 2009 RAJASTHAN 87Rajasthan Rent Control Act S. 9 AIR 2009 (NOC) 1292 (RAJ.)Rajasthan Rent Control Act S. 10 AIR 2009 (NOC) 463 (RAJ.)Rajasthan Rent Control Act S. 14 AIR 2009 (NOC) 784 (RAJ.)Rajasthan Rent Control Act S. 14 AIR 2009 (NOC) 465 (RAJ.)Rajasthan Rent Control Act S. 9 AIR 2008 (NOC) 2058 (RAJ.)Rajasthan Rent Control Act S. 9 AIR 2008 (NOC) 2589 (RAJ.)Rajasthan Rent Control Act S. 21 AIR 2008 RAJASTHAN 156Civil Procedure Code O. 5, R. 20 AIR 2010 RAJASTHAN 170Civil Procedure Code O. 9, R. 13 AIR 2010 RAJASTHAN 170Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic S. 42 2010 CRI. L. J. 4484Civil Procedure Code S. 152 AIR 2007 (NOC) 553 (MAD.)Civil Procedure Code O.1, R. 10 JT 1996 (10) SC 266.Civil Procedure Code O.26, R. 9 AIR 2008 (NOC) 1484 (RAJ.)Civil Procedure Code O.26, R. 9 AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 616Civil Procedure Code O.26, R. 9 AIR 2010 HIMACHAL PRADESH 5Civil Procedure Code O.26, R. 9 AIR 2008 (NOC) 444 (MAD.)Civil Procedure Code O.26, R. 9 2006 (5) AIR Kar R 351Civil Procedure Code O.26, R. 10 AIR 2007 (NOC) 1777 (SIK.)Civil Procedure Code O.26, R. 9 AIR 2008 (NOC) 1213 (A.P.)Civil Procedure Code O.26, R. 9 2010 A I H C 2284.PDFCivil Procedure Code O.26, R. 9 AIR 2009 (NOC) 2774 (ORI.)Civil Procedure Code O.26, R. 9 AIR 2008 (NOC) 618 (CAL.)Civil Procedure Code O.39, R. 1 AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 365Civil Procedure Code O.39, R. 1 2002 (2) WLN 17Negotiable Instruments Act S.142(b) AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1209Indian Penal Code S. 464 AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 840Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17 AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2897Limitation Act S. 15 2010 CRI. L. J. 395Limitation Act Art. 64, 65 2007 (2) AJHAR (NOC) 584 (RAJ.)Registration Act S. 17 2007 (2) AJHAR (NOC) 584 (RAJ.)Limitation Act Art. 136 AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1931Limitation Act Smt.Sala Shiny Kiran vs Sala Uday KiranEvidence Act Section 68 JT 2009 (4) SC 307Pre-emption Act JT 2009 (1) SC 550Limitation Act Article 54 JT 2005 (9) SC 149SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT 1963 Section 16 JT 1996 (Supp.) SC 642Limitation Act Article 54 JT 1997 (1) SC 540Limitation Act Article 54 JT 1996 (4) SC 245Limitation Act Article 54 JT 1989 (SUPP.) SC 354Limitation Act Article 54 JT 1997 (4) SC 659Limitation Act Article 54 JT 2006 (2) SC 156Limitation Act Article 54 JT 2006 (3) SC 212Limitation Act Article 54 JT 2006 (11) SC 89Limitation Act JT 1993 (1) SC 74Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2010 (NOC) 1058 (P. & H.)Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2010 PATNA 104Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2010 (NOC) 576 (BOM.)Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 2010 (4) AIR Bom R 406Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 2010 (1) AIR Bom R 76Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2010 RAJASTHAN 12Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 2009 (5) AIR Bom R 819 (Nagpur Bench)

Negotiable Instruments Act S. 138 2007 CRI. L. J. 2318 (GUJARAT HIGH CNegotiable Instruments Act S. 138 2007 CRI. L. J. 2318 (GUJARAT HIGH CCourt Fees Act S. 7(iv) AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2807Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17 AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2671Evidence Act S. 74 AIR 2008 (NOC) 1738)Court Fees Act S. 7(iv) AIR 2008 PATNA 154Registration Act S. 49 AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1654Stamp Act S. 21 AIR 2010 MADHYA PRADESH 62Registration Act S. 17 AIR 2009 MADRAS 110Stamp Act S. 35 AIR 2009 (NOC) 1057 (A.P.)Civil Procedure Code O. 13, Rr. 3, 4, 6 2009 (2) AIR Bom R 296 FULL BENCHRegistration Act S. 73 AIR 2009 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 35Transfer of Property Act S. 53A AIR 2009 (NOC) 868 (RAJ.)Specific Relief Act S. 34 AIR 2007 (NOC) 30 (RAJ.)Specific Relief Act S. 20 AIR 2007 RAJASTHAN 84Specific Relief Act S. 6 AIR 2007 (NOC) 932 (RAJ.) (JAIPUR BENRajasthan Court Fees and Suits VaS. 41(1)(b) AIR 2007 (NOC) 932 (RAJ.) (JAIPUR BENSpecific Relief Act S. 10Specific Relief Act S. 16Specific Relief Act S. 16 AIR 2008 (NOC) 1623 (RAJ.)Stamp Act S. 47A AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2193Stamp Act S. 31, 32, 56 AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 2854Stamp Act S. 36, 33 AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 637Stamp Act S. 54 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1541Stamp Act S. 17 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 509Stamp Act S. 33, 35, 37, 48B AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 166Stamp Act S. 33 AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 355Evidence Act S. 90 AIR 2007 (NOC) 498 (RAJ.)Civil Procedure Code O.1, R. 10 AIR 2008 RAJASTHAN 174Specific Relief Act S. 16 AIR 2008 RAJASTHAN 174Specific Relief Act S. 20 AIR 2009 (NOC) 3000 (RAJ.)Specific Relief Act S. 20 AIR 2010 (NOC) 136 (RAJ.)Civil Procedure Code O.1, R. 10 AIR 2010 (NOC) 558 (RAJ.)Specific Relief Act S. 19 AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 2663Specific Relief Act S. 31 AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 2967Civil Procedure Code O.39, R. 1 AIR 2010 (NOC) 494 (RAJ.)Civil Procedure Code O. 23, R. 1 AIR 2009 RAJASTHAN 70Specific Relief Act S. 38 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 901Rajasthan Land Revenue Act S. 82 AIR 2008 (NOC) 1097 (RAJ.)Specific Relief Act S. 12 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1205

Rajasthan Tennancy Act S. 15 AIR 2007 (NOC) 1742 (RAJ.)

Rajasthan Land Revenue Act S. 261 AIR 2007 (NOC) 580 (RAJ)

Rajasthan Land Revenue Act S. 261 AIR 2007 (NOC) 236 (RAJ.)Rajasthan Land Revenue Act S. 114 AIR 2007 (NOC) 2003 (RAJ.)Rajasthan Land Revenue Act S. 82 AIR 2008 (NOC) 1852 (RAJ.)Rajasthan Land Revenue Act S. 261 AIR 2008 (NOC) 1854 (RAJ.)Rajasthan Land Revenue Act S. 90-B AIR 2008 (NOC) 2366 (RAJ.)Rajasthan Land Revenue Act S. 82 AIR 2008 (NOC) 2849 (RAJ.)Rajasthan Land Revenue Act S. 136 AIR 2009 (NOC) 484 (RAJ.)Rajasthan Land Revenue Act S. 261 AIR 2009 (NOC) 2629 (RAJ.)Jaipur Development Authority ActS. 38 AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 1122Jaipur Development Authority ActS. 25 AIR 2009 (NOC) 1389 (RAJ.)Jaipur Development Authority ActS. 29(3), (13) (3) AIR 2007 (NOC) 1594 (RAJ.)Jaipur Development Authority ActS. 16 AIR 2007 (NOC) 2499 (RAJ.)Jaipur Development Authority ActS. 30 AIR 2008 (NOC) 1644 (RAJ.)Jaipur Development Authority ActS. 15 AIR 2009 (NOC) 382 (RAJ.)Jaipur Development Authority ActS. 31 AIR 2009 (NOC) 382 (RAJ.)Jaipur Development Authority ActS. 54 AIR 2009 (NOC) 578 (RAJ.)Registration Act S. 17 AIR 2007 (NOC) 320 (RAJ.)Registration Act S. 17 AIR 2007 ANDHRA PRADESH 57 FULL Registration Act S. 49 AIR 2007 (NOC) 575 (P & H )Registration Act S. 17 AIR 2007 BOMBAY 111Registration Act S. 17 AIR 2008 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 23Registration Act S. 34, 35 AIR 2007 MADRAS 159Registration Act S. 71, 69 AIR 2008 MADHYA PRADESH 86Registration Act S. 58 2007 A I H C 1000 (ALLAHABAD HIGH CRegistration Act S. 35, 74 AIR 2007 Karnataka 164

 AIR 2007 (NOC) 1435 (RAJ.) = 2007 (1) WLC 38 AIR 2007 (NOC) 1435 (RAJ.) = 2007 (1) WLC 38

Registration Act S. 35, 74 AIR 2007 Karnataka 164Registration Act S. 77 AIR 2007 HIMACHAL PRADESH 98Registration Act S. 73 AIR 2008 Allahabad 66Registration Act S. 73 AIR 2008 Allahabad 66Registration Act S. 34 2010 (4) AIR Kar R 647Registration Act S. 34 2010 (4) AIR Kar R 647Civil Procedure Code O. 13, R. 4 2010 AIR SCW 5200Civil Procedure Code O. 39, R. 1 AIR 2010 (NOC) 940 (P. & H.)Evidence Act S. 92 AIR 2010 GAUHATI 137Evidence Act S. 74 2010 (4) AIR Bom R 41 (SUPREME COUREvidence Act S. 111 2010 A I H C 2468 (GUJARAT HIGH COURegistration Act S. 17 AIR 2010 RAJASTHAN 152Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 3174Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 3174Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 1247Civil Procedure Code O.1, R. 10 2007 AIR SCW 1490Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2007 (NOC) 806 (MAD.)Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2007 JHARKHAND 88Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2009 RAJASTHAN 1Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 2009 (3) ALJ (DOC) 116 (ALL.) (DB) ( LuCivil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 JT 2005 (12) SC 302Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 2007 AIR SCW 3456Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 JT 2005 (7) SC 422Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 JT 2007 (12) SC 295Specific Relief Act S. 12 JT 1990 (1) SC 253Specific Relief Act S. 41 JT 2010 (12) SC 92Civil Procedure Code O.1, R. 10 AIR 2009 RAJASTHAN 28Civil Procedure Code O.39, R. 1 AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2292Civil Procedure Code O.5, R. 20 AIR 2010 RAJASTHAN 170Civil Procedure Code O.5, R. 20 2007 (6) ALJ 573Civil Procedure Code O.5, R. 20 AIR 2007 (NOC) 664 (GUJ.)Civil Procedure Code O.5, R. 20 2007 (4) ALJ 474Stamp Act S. 35 AIR 2007 (NOC) 2152 (DEL.)Stamp Act S. 36 AIR 2007 Madhya Pradesh 230Stamp Act S. 34 2010 (4) AIR Kar R 58Stamp Act S. 35, 36 AIR 2007 Rajasthan 241Stamp Act S. 49 AIR 2008 (NOC) 2639 (MAD.)Evidence Act S. 90 AIR 2007 (NOC) 323 (RAJ.)Registration Act S. 17 2006 (3) Civil Court Cases 298Evidence Act S. 63 AIR 2009 RAJASTHAN 60Civil Procedure Code O. 18, R. 4 AIR 2010 RAJASTHAN 59Registration Act S. 17 AIR 2010 RAJASTHAN 152Stamp Act S. 35 AIR 2009 MADRAS 84Stamp Act S. 34 AIR Bom R 72Civil Procedure Code O.39, R. 1 AIR 2010 (NOC) 292 (RAJ.)Civil Procedure Code O.39, R. 1 2007 (4) ABR (NOC) 637 (BOM.)Civil Procedure Code O.39, R. 1 AIR 2007 (NOC) 1035 (PAT.)Civil Procedure Code O.39, R. 1 AIR 2007 (NOC) 169 (DEL.)Evidence Act S. 115 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 424Criminal Procedure Code S. 145 2007 (6) ALJ (NOC) 1083 (ALL.)Criminal Procedure Code S. 145 2007 (57) ACC 992Criminal Procedure Code S. 145 2008 (1) AIR Kar R 560Criminal Procedure Code S. 145 2007 CRI. L. J. 1885Criminal Procedure Code S. 145 2008 (2) AIR Kar R 557Criminal Procedure Code S. 145 2008 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 479Criminal Procedure Code S. 145 2009 AIR SCW 5248Civil Procedure Code O. 39 R. 1 2009 AIR SCW 5248Negotiable Instruments Act S. 145 AIR 2010 (NOC) 785 (RAJ.) (Jaipur BenchRegistration Act S. 17,49 AIR 2011 RAJASTHAN 24Specific Relief Act S. 20 JT 1996 (7) SC 499Civil Procedure Code JT 2008 (3) SC 616Civil Procedure Code O. 39, R. 1 AIR 2008 (NOC) 1692 (BOM.)Civil Procedure Code O. 39, R. 1 AIR 2007 (NOC) 504 (ORI.)Civil Procedure Code O. 39, R. 1 2010 AIR SCW 305Civil Procedure Code O. 39, R. 1 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2291Civil Procedure Code O. 39, R. 1 AIR 2006 SURPEME COURT 1474Registration Act S. 49 JT 2010 (3) SC 610

Specific Relief Act S. 20 AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 119Specific Relief Act S. 16 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 143Transfer of Property Act S. 52 AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 1332Civil Procedure Code O.1, R. 10 AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 1332Specific Relief Act S. 20 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1541Specific Relief Act S. 26 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1960Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1960Specific Relief Act S. 20 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1786Specific Relief Act S. 34 AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 414Specific Relief Act S. 16 AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 917Specific Relief Act S. 16 AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 624Specific Relief Act S. 15(2) AIR 2010 (NOC) (Supp) 1169 (BOM.)Specific Relief Act S. 20 AIR 2009 (NOC) 1681 (P. & H.)Contract Act S. 20 AIR 2009 KARNATAKA 79

Hindu law 2007 (1) ABR (NOC) 71 (Bom)

Limitation Act Article 58 AIR 2007 (NOC) 1593 (P. & H.)

Civil Procedure Code O. 39, R. 1 AIR 2009 (NOC) 1144 (ALL.)

Civil Procedure Code O. 23, R. 1 AIR 2009 RAJASTHAN 70

Civil Procedure Code S. 96 AIR 2010 (NOC) 36 (BOM.)

Civil Procedure Code O. 39, R. 1 AIR 2010 (NOC) 494 (RAJ.)

Court Fees Act S. 6(iv)(ha) AIR 2010 (NOC) 1066 (BOM.)Limitation Act S. 5 AIR 2008 (NOC) 2615 (RAJ.)Limitation Act S. 5 2009 AIR SCW 5006Limitation Act S. 5 AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 695Limitation Act S. 5 AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 3043Limitation Act S. 5 AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1025Limitation Act S. 5 AIR 2008 (NOC) 2371 (KAR.)Limitation Act S. 5 2009 CRI. L. J. 2595Limitation Act S. 5 AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2962Civil Procedure Code O. 9, R. 7 AIR 2007 Kerala 301Civil Procedure Code O. 47, R. 1 AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 476Civil Procedure Code O. 47, R. 1 2009 (1) AIR Kar R. 524 (DB)Civil Procedure Code O. 47, R. 1 2008 LAB. I. C. (NOC) 444 (RAJ.)Civil Procedure Code O. 47, R. 1 AIR 2007 (NOC) 795 (P. & H.) (DB)Indian Penal Code S. 279, 304A 2008 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 646Criminal Procedure Code S. 227 2010 CRI. L. J. 1427Criminal Procedure Code S. 227 2009 CRI. L. J. 4436Indian Penal Code S. 279, 304A 2007 CRI. L. J. 1089Civil Procedure Code O.9, R. 13 AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 1150

Motor Vehicles Act Section 157 JT 2011 (1) SC 117Civil Procedure Code O. 39, R. 1 AIR 2011 RAJASTHAN 60Juvenile Justice Act S. 12 2011 CRI. L. J. 1599Civil Procedure Code O. 39, R. 1 AIR 2011 RAJASTHAN 61Negotiable Instruments Act S. 138 2006 (4) AIR Kar R 242Negotiable Instruments Act S. 138 2006 (4) AIR Kar R 242Negotiable Instruments Act S. 138 2010 CRI. L. J. 1971

Civil Procedure Code AIR2009SC2847, JT2009(7)SC579, (200Civil Procedure Code O. 9, R. 7 AIR 2008 RAJASTHAN 179Civil Procedure Code S. 21 AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 1077Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17 2011 (3) ALJ 126Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17 AIR 2008 (NOC) 2758 (RAJ.)Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17 AIR 2007 (NOC) 2311 (P. & H.)Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17 2011 (2) ALJ 215

Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17 2010 AIHC (NOC) 844 (A.P.)

Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17 AIR 2009 GUJARAT 172

Civil Procedure Code O. 6, R. 17 AIR 2009 (NOC) 2748 (BOM.) Motor Vehicles Act S. 166 2008 (1) AIR Jhar R 281 (DB)Motor Vehicles Act S. 166 AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 1474Evidence Act S. 65 AIR 2009 (NOC) 761 (RAJ.)General Clauses Act S. 27 2007 CRI. L. J. 3214Negotiable Instruments Act S. 138 2007 CRI. L. J. 3214Negotiable Instruments Act S. 138 AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 109Limitation Act S. 5 AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1040Limitation Act S. 5 AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 1927

 2010 AIR Bom R (Supp) 920

Limitation Act S. 5 AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2863Limitation Act S. 5 AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 473Limitation Act S. 5 AIR 2008 (NOC) 2614 (RAJ.)Evidence Act S. 65 AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 1492Evidence Act S. 65 2007 (1) ALJ 313Evidence Act S. 65 AIR 2008 (NOC) 733 (MAD.)Evidence Act S. 65 2010 (4) AIR Kar R 144Evidence Act S. 65Evidence Act S. 65 2007 (2) ABR (NOC) 340 (BOM.)Evidence Act S. 65 AIR 2010 (NOC) 701 Evidence Act S. 65 AIR 2008 (NOC) 2574 (P. & H.)Civil Procedure Code O.39, R. 1 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2291Civil Procedure Code O.39, R. 1 AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2292Rajasthan Tennancy Act S. 15 AIR 2007 (NOC) 2466 (RAJ.Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2009 RAJASTHAN 142Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2008 (NOC) 1259 (RAJ.)Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2009 (NOC) 2783 (RAJ.)Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2008 (NOC) 370 (RAJ.)Civil Procedure Code O. 7, R. 11 AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 351Court Fees Act S. 7 AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 2807Karnataka Court-fees and Suits VaS. 24 2010 (4) AIR Kar R 772Civil Procedure Code O. 9, R. 7 AIR 2010 (NOC) 765 (MAD.)

Civil Procedure Code O. 9, R. 7 JT 2002 (4) SC 433Hindu Succession Act S. 6 AIR 2007 (NOC) 2622 (BOM.)Hindu Succession Act S. 82 AIR 2007 (NOC) 2236 (KAR.)Hindu Succession Act S. 6 AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1490Motor Vehicles Act S. 147 2009 A I H C 403 (Uttarakhand High CourtMotor Vehicles Act S. 147 AIR 2010 (NOC) (Supp) 95 (KAR.)Motor Vehicles Act S. 157 AIR 2008 (NOC) 2 (CHH.)Indian Penal Code S. 354 AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 49Civil Procedure Code O. 9, R. 13 AIR 2008 RAJASTHAN 206

Civil Procedure Code O. 22, R. 4 JT 1993 (4) SC 192

 2009 (6) ABR (NOC) 1213

Text HeadnoteDocument not duly stamped — Effect — Unregistered Deed of sale — Adequate stamp duty not paid thereon — Not admissible in evidence in terms of S. 35 — Said document would not also be admissible for collateral purpose — Impounding of said document — Was proper. Registration Act (16 of 1908), S. 49.Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) - O. 7, R. 11(d) — Re-jection of plaint — Ground of limitation — If a suit on face of it is barred by limitation it can be rejected under O. 7, R. 11 of Code — However question whether suit is within limitation is to be considered only on basis of averments in plaint. If a suit is on the face of it barred by limitation it can be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code. In such a case it is not necessary to push the parties to trial merely because limitation is mixed question of fact and law. But it does not follow that the objections of the defendant to the date shown in the plaint as the date of accrual of cause of action can be looked into at that stage. The question whether the suit is within limitation or not would have to be considered by the Court for the purpose of application for rejection of plaint only on the basis of averments in the plaint.Limitation Act (36 of 1963) - Art. 54 — Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 20 — Suit for specific performance of contract — Starting point of limitation — If date is not fixed in contract limitation starts from date of refusal on part of defendant to perform contract — Refusal requires demand by plaintiff and if demand is refused, that gives cause of action — Refusal to re-deliver possession by defendant will not give rise to cause of action — Cause of action was for demand of execution of sale deed — Plaint does not show as to when demand was made by plaintiff for registering sale deed in his favour — Burden is on plaintiff to show that there was embargo to be lifted by Govt. and it had prevented plaintiff from seeking registration of the sale — Waiting for 19 years, does not give right to plaintiff to sue for specific performance, but for penalty of Rs. 30,000/-

A plea of limitation cannot be decided as an abstract principle of law divorced from facts as in every case the starting point of limitation has to be ascertained which is entirely a question of fact. A plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. Counter-claim — Payment of Court-fees — Plaintiff filing appeal challenging decree of Court dismissing their suit for recovery of amount as also decreeing amount of counter-claim — Plaintiffs are required to pay Court-fee on amount of counter-claim — If court-fee is not paid in respect of decree on counter-claim, that part of decree would be final and would operate as res judicata. AIR 1997 Ker 318, Rel. on.the merits of the case can be decided before the delivery of the judgment and if the court comes to the conclusion that the court-fee paid is deficient, it may defer the pronouncement of the judgment and ask the party to pay the deficit court-fee as per valuation of the Court, Thus, the multiplicity of the proceedings delay in the disposal of the suit and calling and recalling the witnesses every time can be avoided and it will serve the cause of justice and the cause of litigants alsoEviction proceedings against tenants — Filing of affidavits by landlord — Act does not limit landlords—™ right to file affidavits after pleadings are complete and in course of inquiry — Landlord can file affidavits even after rejoinder is filed and prior permission of Court would not be necessary.

Eviction of tenant — Ground that landlord required suit shop for running his own business — Earlier landlord used to sit with his son in latter’s shop but subsequently there had been some disputes between them and relations between them became strained resulting thereby his son declined to allow his father to sit in shop in which his son had business of trading in cement — Bona fide need proved — Tenant liable to be evicted.viction of tenant — Ground of default in payment of rent and non-user of house — Tenant shown to be residing in Delhi and not in Jodhpur — Eviction ordered, not improper.Rejection of plaint — Application for — Ground that suit for injunction was barred by law — Suit premises given on lease by general body of society to defendant by way of resolution — Prima facie relationship of landlord and tenant established — Suit filed for injunction was in effect for seeking revocation of said resolution and dispossession — Such a suit could only be filed before Rent Tribunal — Civil Court’s jurisdiction would be barred — Plaint liable to be rejected.Suit for eviction — Bona fide need of landlord — Plaintiff landlord needed suit land for construction of their own residential house — Defendant tenant had constructed his own show room and was using suit land only for keeping his wooden stock — Need of landlord held bona fide — Tenant liable to be evicted.Suit for eviction — Ground of personal bona fide necessity — Death of landlord during pendency of suit — Bona fide need would continue even after his death as it was claimed for himself and his son — Subsequent events in form of sale of said property would not ipso facto upset the decree — Attornment in favour of purchaser would be automatic — Purchaser of property would be entitled for vacant possession. 1987 (Supp) SCC 630 and 1998 DNJ (Raj) 293, Distg.Filing of written statement by tenant — Outer limit of 45 days as prescribed by S. 15 (3) — Is directory and not mandatory — Court in its discretion can extend time for filing of written statement.Suit for eviction — Ground of sub- letting — Suit property let out to original tenant prior to her entering into partnership firm — Subsequently he shifted to London and never returned — Partnership managed by other defendant and was never registered with Registrar of Firms — Partnership was thus drawn up merely to provide a cover and to make believe that original tenant had not parted with possession of suit premises in favour of defendant — Subletting proved — Eviction ordered, not improper.Bona fide need — Petition filed taking grounds of bona fide need and that property in question was taken on rent for residential purpose but, later on, school was opened in said premises and tenant started using said property for commercial purpose — Finding of fact recorded that premises was let out for commercial purpose — On such case Chapters II and III of Act will apply and landlord would be entitled for eviction decree upon ground of bona fide necessity.Eviction — Ground of bona fide need — Suit filed only when tenant did not agree to pay enhanced rent — Petition also suffered from suppression of material facts — Claim for eviction on ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement liable to be rejected.Suit for eviction — Personal bona fide necessity — Landlord having factory for manufacturing furniture and handicrafts required suit shop for opening their showroom of furniture and handicrafts — Plea that no books of accounts were produced before trial Court to show loss caused on account of non-setting up showroom, not tenable — Since sufferance of actual loss of non-setting up of showroom of furniture and handicrafts was not necessary as such loss could not be measured in terms of money nor it was recorded in books of accounts — Suit decreed on ground of personal bona fide need, not improper.Commercial premises — Suit for eviction — Bona fide need — Landlord had retired from Govt. service and he wanted to do his own business in suit premises — Death of landlord during pendency of appeal — Requirement of premises by his legal heirs namely widow will not extinguish on his death — Fact that widow was getting pension and her sons were also in employment, cannot be ground to deny her possession — Even widow has her own independent right of survival and earn her livelihood after death of her husband — Eviction ordered.Suit for eviction — Default in payment of rent — Rent provisionally determined in terms of S. 13(3) of 1950 Act — But no order passed by trial court in suit and defence of tenant was not struck off — Subsequent withdrawal of suit after enforcement of Act of 2001 — No provision akin to provisions of S. 13(3) to 13(5) of the Act of 1950, providing for determination of rent provisionally or striking out defence on account of non payment of amount determined provisionally or monthly rent subsequent thereto, incorporated in Act of 2001 — Question of striking out the defence of the tenant in proceedings for eviction u/S. 9 of the Act of 2001 would not arise — Even if, any such right had accrued to petitioner during pendency of eviction proceedings before trial Court under Act of 1950, the same cannot be enforced in fresh eviction proceedings lodged under provisions of S. 9 of Act of 2001.Amendment in written statement — Permissibility — Crutial date is date of petition — Suit for eviction of tenant from shop — Amendment sought in appeal to incorporate plea that ground of bona fide necessity ceased to exist due to appointment of son of landlord in Bank — Fact of appointment was not in existence at stage of trial — If such application will be allowed at appellate stage then certainly at every stage after adjudication, parties will take plea of amendment and no trial Court will be able to adjudicate matter finally and there will be no end of dispute — Said ground cannot be allowed to take away ground of personal bona fide necessity of landlord — Amendment cannot be allowed. AIR 2005 SC 1274, Rel. on. AIR 2007 SC 2511, AIR 2002 SC 3369, DistingSubstituted service — Directions for, issued without recording satisfaction that defendants cannot be served personally — No efforts made to get defendants served personally in ordinary way — Service of summons cannot be considered to be sufficient and in accordance with law.Setting aside ex parte decree — On basis of material on record, no conclusion could be drawn that defendants had notice about date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear before Court and answer plaintiff— s claim — In interest of justice, defendants deserve to be granted an opportunity to contest suit — Ex parte decree set aside.Possession of contraband — Search and seizure — Competent authority — Sub-Inspector who conducted search and seizure was not posted as Station House Officer at relevant time at concerned Police Station — Thus, search and seizure cannot be said to have been conducted by competent officer — Conviction of accused liable to be set aside.Amendment of decree — Interest portion accidently slipped by office while drafting preliminary decree — Application to amend preliminary decree to incorporate interest portion of judgment of trial Court — It is not amendment to be carried out under O. 6, R. 17 — Mistake can be rectified u/S. 152.Addition of a third party - If consequence of addition of a third party in a suit would involve a de novo trial, Court should normally disallow the application.Appointment of local commissioner — Suit for partition of agricultural land and for permanent injunction — Evidence was yet to be adduced by plaintiff and issues were yet to be framed — Dismissal of application of defendant for appointment of commissioner for local inspection — Not erroneous.Alleged encroachment of suit land of appellant Board — Respondents’ land adjacent to suit land — Application for demarcation by appellant before trial Court, was rejected — Application for appointment of Local Commissioner for demarcation of suit land filed by appellant before Appellate Court was also rejected — High Court did not consider whether Local Commissioner should be appointed for purpose of demarcation — Summarily dismissed second appeal on basis of concurrent findings of fact that Board failed to prove encroachment by respondents — Order of High Court liable to be set aside. R. S. A. No. 3374 of 2003, D/- 16-1-2007 (Punj. and Har.) - Reversed.Local Commissioner — Can be appointed even at appellate stage — Boundary disputes — Encroachment — Earlier demarcation not carried out in accordance with law — Application seeking appointment of local Commissioner to demarcate land in question to ascertain encroachment — Rejected on technical ground, not proper — Appellate Court directed to appoint local Commissioner and accordingly decide issue of encroachment.Local investigation — Advocate commission appointed by Court to inspect property — Duty of Commissioner is not to collect evidence, which is in nature of oral testimony of parties — But to graphically elucidate matter, which is local in character.Commission to make local investigation — Commissioner appointed by Court has got no power to delegate said work to any other person — Fact that delegate is an expert in field — Is no ground to accept his report.Appointment of Commissioner for local inspetion — Report submitted by Commissioner — Found dissatisfactory by Court — Court should direct further enquiry and call for supplementary report from same Commissioner — R. 10 does not authorize Court to set aside Commissioner’s report if it was found to be deficient and did not answer point in controversy.Commissioner cannot be appointed to find out as to who is in possession of property — But he can be appointed to make local investigation to ascertain facts or other materials which are found in property and to make a report in regard to that matter to Court.Appointment of second Commissioner — Permissibility — Application for appointment of second Commissioner on ground that first Commissioner while preparing report relied upon sketch which was suspended by High Court — Held, proper course with petitioner is to request trial Court to direct first Commissioner himself to make a local inspection again or to convince trial Court about unacceptability of first report and seek appointment of second Commissioner Appointment of Commissioner — Discretion of Court — Exercise of — Commissioner appointed before commencement of oral evidence — Not proper.Appointment of Commissioner — Plaintiff seeking injunction against defendants from disturbing plaintiffs running vegetable market — Defendants denied existence of such market — Application filed by plaintiffs for appointment of an advocate-Commissioner — Commissioner can be appointed for purpose of ascertaining state of things that may be asserted and denied by rival parties — Rejection of application by trial Court on ground that plaintiffs could not seek to fish out evidence or establish a state of things — Improper.Injunction against dispossession — Granted in suit for declaration of sale deed as void — Injunction granted continuing for 9 years — Subsequent recall — Held improper — Early disposals of suit directed.Temporary injunction - Suit for specific performance - Plaintiff not in possession - No prima facie case - Plaintiff had not acquired any right to seek relief of injunction against the true owner - Injunction rightly refuseDishonour of cheque — Complaint — Limitation for filing — Payee not filing complaint after service of first notice of demand on drawer — Cannot issue second notice of demand to drawer and file complaint thereafter.Forged document — Mere alteration of document — Does not make it forged document — Alteration must be for some gain or for some objective.Amendment of plaint — Application for — Allowing/rejection of — Principles to be taken into consideration.Limitation for filing execution application — Computation — Period during which stay order was operating will be excluded.Adverse possession — Is a question of fact which has to be specifically pleaded and proved — plaintiff neither asserted plea of adverse possession nor any issue was framed by trial Court in this regard — None of the parties lead any evidence on point — Held, appellate Court by erroneously making out an altogether new case which was not pleaded set aside judgment passed by trial Court and decreed suit filed by plaintiff.Effect of non-registration — Agreement of sale written on plain paper and not registered — Would not confer any right, title or interest to transferee — Transferee acquiring possession of suit shop in part performance of agreement — Transferee at the most can avail benefit of S. 53-A of T. P. Act only as shield and not as sword. Transfer of Property Plea of limitation — Defence that suit was barred by time — Set up in Written Statement — No specific issue framed — Trial Court coming to finding that suit was barred by time — First Appellate Court and also High Court not going into said question nor deciding it before reversing judgment of Trial Court — Plea of limitation before Supreme Court under Art. 136Suit could not be dismissed as barred by limitation without proper pleadings, framing of an issue of limitation and taking of evidence. Question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.Will - Proof of - Grant of Probate - No issue regarding validity of Will - One witness examined - Not supporting claim on due execution and attestation - None signed in his presence. Held that Will was not established. High Court's order upheld.When a co-sharer sells his share in the joint holding he transfers his right as a co-sharer in the said land and the right to remain in its exclusive possession till the joint holding is partitioned amongst all co-sharers.Rights and liabilities of co-sharers - Principles governing. Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.Plea of demanding specific performance is available only to vendor /defendant and is personal to him, and subsequent purchasers have no right - The plea that plaintiff must be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract must be available only to the vendor or his legal representatives but not to subsequent purchasers - SLP dismissed.Limitation begins to run from the date the parties have stipulated for performance of the contract and suit is to be filed within 3 years from date so stipulated - Application for amendment changed the cause of action as the cause of action was to be stated initially in plaint but was not pleaded.Suit for specific performance - Respondent had instituted a suit for perpetual injunction and by an application under O.6, R.17 CPC, the respondent got the suit converted into one for specific performance by order dated 25.8.1989 - Limitation had started from April 6, 1986 - Held that suit filed after 3 years was clearly barred by limitationSpecific performance of contarct for sale - Under the agreement, date fixed by reference to the occurrence of certain event i.e. the redemption of the mortgage - Requirement of Article 113 - Actual day need not be mentioned on the deed, but the basis of the calculation which was to make it certain should be found therein.Suit filed after expiry of 3 years from the date of knowledge of denial is hopelessly barred by limitation under Article 54 - Mere issue of notice in 1972 does not stop running of limitation once it has began to run - High Court justified in dismissing suit.Suit for Specific performance of contract - Limitation -- Appellant entering into an agreement for sale of his land to respondent in October 1982 - Respondent upon paying certain amount as earnest money put in physical possession of the land -Sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered upon disposal of an appeal pending in High Court - As per the sale agreement respondent was to repay an amount of Rs. 42,000 to a bank being the loan taken by the appellant from the bank - Bank having filed a suit for recovery appellant issuing notice to respondent on 24-4-1984 directing him to pay the loan amount to the bank and get the sale deed executed within 15 days failing which the agreement shall stand cancelled - Respondent depositing an amount of only Rs. 10,000 in the bank on 25-5-1985 - On 26-9-1989 respondent filing a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale - Trial court decreeing the suit - Lower appellate court however holding the suit to be barred by limitation - On further appeal High Court holding that since time was not the essence of the contract the suit was not barred and accordingly remitting the matter to the lower appellate court - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that since the suit was not filed within three years from the date of expiry of the period of fifteen days specified in the notice dated 24-4-1984 it was barred by limitation.Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale - Suit filed almost 29 years after the sale agreement - Defendant disputing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court and also taking the stand that the suit was barred by limitation - Trial court holding that it had jurisdiction to try the suit and dismissing the suit as being barred by limitation - Lower appellate court as well as High Court affirming the decision and dismissing the appeal - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that the trial court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. Applicability of Section 46 of the Contract Act and several other pleas available to the defendants which were required to be considered, cannot enable the dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation. Matter accordingly remitted to trial court for fresh consideration of all the issues.Agreement for sale of property - Form of contract and execution of deeds - Performance of contract - Limitation for raising the plea of specific performance - Private limited company (company) owning certain property entering into an agreement with first respondent for sale - Agreement for sale dated 18.4.1971 -Company receiving advance amount for sale - In May 1971 company filing a suit against some persons claiming ownership over the property and obtaining a consent decree on 3.5.1978 - Thereafter first respondent writing letters on 12-11-1979, 11.1.1980, 5.1.1981 and 8.10.1984 asking the company to execute and register the sale deed - Company also assuring the first respondent that it would do the needful - However on 21.8.1985 company refusing to execute and register the deed on the plea that the same became barred by limitation - First respondent filing suit for specific performance in 1985 - During pendency of the suit company selling the property to appellant - Appellant contesting the suit and disputing its maintainability - Trial court decreeing the suit - Appeals there against dismissed by the lower appellate court as well as High Court. Dismissing further appeal held that since the period of limitation got extended by conduct of the parties the suit was not barred. Execution of the agreement by the company in favour of the first respondent had not been denied at any stage. Even in the absence of any resolution on the part of the company or official seal of the company in the agreement the contract could not be held to be invalid or illegal. Decretal of the suit for specific performance consequently upheld.Agreement to sell - Whether time is es sence of contract? - Held that there is a presumption against time being essence of the contract - To make time the essence of the contract, intention must be expressed in unequivocal language.Return of plaint — For want of notice — Permission under S. 80(2) for exemption from service of advance notice to defendants granted by Court — Case cannot be reopened for compliance of S. 80(1) of Code — Order returning plaint for compliance of S. 80(1) liable to be set aside.Suit for declaring compromise decree as forged — Not maintainable being barred by O. 23, R. 3A — In such case Court should exercise jurisdiction under O. 7, R. 11(d) and reject plaint as a whole.Rejection of plaint — Suit for redemption of mortgage — No categorical statement in plaint that there was any transaction of mortgage between parties — No cause of action had been set out in plaint — Plaint liable to be rejected.Rejection of plaint — Relevant consideration — Averments in plaint are relevant for deciding application for rejection of plaint and for that purpose plaint has to be read as a whole — Averments in written statement are wholly irrelevant for deciding application for rejection of plaint.Rejection of plaint — On ground that second suit was filed without obtaining leave under O. 2, R. 2 — Second suit was filed for specific performance of agreement — First suit was filed for injunction — Cause of action was substantively same in both suits as both suits were based on agreement executed between plaintiff and defendants — Plaintiff omitted prayer for specific performance in first suit — Second suit was required to be filed after obtaining leave under O. 2, R. 2 — Suit was filed without obtaining leave under O. 2, R. 2 — Rejection of plaint proper.Rejection of plaint — Application for — At time of deciding application under O. 7, R. 11(d) only statement of plaint is required to be seen — No assertion in plaint that suit was barred by any law — Petitioner was raising voice with regard to maintainability of suit — Refusal to reject plaint, not improper.Rejection of plaint — Suit for specific performance of contract — Case of defendants that Memorandum of Understanding entered into between parties is void and illegal — Civil court is entitled to take cognizance of every dispute of civil nature unless law prohibits it either expressly or impliedly from entertaining the dispute — Party seeking rejection of plaint under O. 7, R. 11 must show provision of law prohibiting civil court from entertaining the dispute or that an alternate forum or remedy is provided — Failure to show any such provision of law — Rejection of plaint not proper.

Eviction decree on basis of Compromise — Enforcement — Eviction sought on ground of reasonable and bona fide need — Compromise between parties whereunder tenant agreed to vacate premises within stipulated date — Inference can be drawn that tenant admitted existence of grounds of eviction — Tenant not handing over possession after stipulated date — Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), O. 14, R. 2 — Proceedings under Act — Framing of issues — Provisions of CPC does not apply — But

S. 138 Dishonour of cheque — Registration of complaint under S. 138 — Duty of trial Court — Court should carry out proper verification before issuing summons in a criminal case under S. 138 — Following verification required while registering complaint under S. 138 stated.Dishonour of cheque — Offences by companies — Petitioner, Additional Director of accused-company resigned before cheque in question was dishonoured — No specific averments in complaint as to how and in what manner petitioner was responsible for conduct of the business of company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning — Complaint against petitioner quashed.Court-fee — Suit for declaration that sale deed executed by plaintiff—™s father is null and void and for joint possession — Is not a suit for cancellation of sale deed — Court-fee need not be paid on sale consideration mentioned in sale deeds — Court-fee payable is computable under Section 7(iv)(c). Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 34.Amendment of plaint — Delay — Not by itself sufficient ground to reject amendment — Court has to see whether by allowing belated amendment, real controversy between parties may be resolved — Whether opposite party can be compensated by cost or otherwise.Registered document — Has lot of sanctity attached to it — Sanctity cannot be allowed to be lost without following proper procedure — Registered power of attorney — Mere filing of criminal complaint against power of attorney-holder — Not sufficient to revoke power of attorney.Suit for declaration of sale deed as void ab initio — No relief claimed that sale deed in question be cancelled or avoided — Plaintiff not bound to pay ad valorem court-fees — Payment of fixed declaratory court-fees would be sufficient. 1975 Pat LJR 349 and 2006 (4) Pat LJR 443, Rel. on. Unregistered Sale Deed — Admissible in evidence as evidence of contract in suit for specific performance of contract — Also admissible as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. Specific Relief Act

Registration of sale agreement — Whether mandatory for seeking injunction — Applicant sought injunction on ground that he had purchased suit property and paid part consideration — Unregistered sale deed showing delivery of possession to applicant on payment of 85% sale consideration — Reliability — Had the applicant sought benefit of part performance under S. 53-A of T. P. Act registration of sale deed would have been mandatory — Since no such benefit is claimed, unregistered sale deed can be relied upon by Court in an injunction application.Instrument not duly stamped — Admissibility — Old unregistered sale deed not accepted by trial Court as evidence for want of registration and payment of stamp duty and penalty — Decision of trial Court upheld being as per S. 35 of Stamp Act.Documentary evidence — Admissibility — Objection relating to deficiency of stamp duty — Must be taken when document is tendered in evidence — Such objection must be judicially determined before document is marked as exhibit.Registration of sale deed — Validity — Suit for specific performance on basis of unregistered sale deed was pending before Civil Court — Jurisdiction of Civil Court is plenary in nature and, therefore, all questions in respect of execution of documents and receipt of sale consideration or execution of agreement are issues, which are required to be examined in civil suit — Invocation of jurisdiction of Registrar under S. 73 of Act would be abuse of process of law — Therefore, order passed by Registrar directing registration of sale deed during pendency of matter before Civil Court would be improper.Suit for specific performance — Plea of possession in part performance of oral agreement to sale cannot be raised by vendee.Suit for declaration and partition - Petitioner along with his brother inherited suit property from his deceased father - Mutation of land was recorded in favour of his brother only - Evidence on record so also in Panchayat election list name of petitioner was shown as son of his father - Mutation attested in favour of his brother cannot deprive petitioner of his right - Finding that petitioner was son of his father and thus entitled to one half share from land in dispute - Is proper.Agreement to sell — Specific performance — Mere fact that there is stipulation in agreement that in event of default of defendant, plaintiff would be entitled to refund of amount — By itself would not disentitle plaintiff to decree for specific performance. AIR 2000 SC 2408, AIR 2000 SC 191, AIR 1999 SC 2309 and AIR 1994 Raj 259, Rel. on. Suit for recovery of possession by person wrongfully dispossessed — Limitation — Is to be computed from date of actual dispossession and not from date of knowledge of dispossession — Finding recorded by trial Court by considering date of knowledge as date of dispossession and decree of restoration passed — Improper and liable to be set aside.Suit for recovery of possession by person wrongfully dispossessed — Relationship of tenancy among landlord and tenant not disputed between parties — Court-fees deposited in terms of S. 41(1)(d) — Proper.Agreement of sale — Payment of entire consideration and possession also delivered — Execution of sale deed but failure to get it registered — Suit for specific performance on basis of executed agreement — Maintainable. Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), Ss. 53A and 55(1)(d). Registration Act (16 of 1908), S. 59.Readiness and willingness — Purchaser discharging all obligation under agreement — Failure only on part of vendor to get sale deed registered — Lack of proper pleadings regarding readiness and willingness, held on facts should not be a ground for denial of relief of specific performanceAgreement to sell — Suit for specific performance — Readiness and willingness — Plaintiff vendee not pleading that he was ready and willing to pay balance amount or that he made any effort to pay the same — Not entitled to relief of specific performance. (B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 16 (c) — Agreement to sell — Suit for specific performance — Subsequent purchaser of property who were defendant in suit — Entitled to raise plea that plaintiff (prior purchaser) was never ready and willing to perform his part of contract. AIR 2000 SC 860, Rel. on.Under-valued instruments — Reference under S. 47-A to Collector — When can be made — Document when presented should be registered first by Sub-Registrar and then reference can be made to Collector if he deems fit and proper.Chargeability of instrument with duty — Determination by Collector — Is revisable — Issuance of certificate by endorsement by Collector under S. 32(3) — Does not take away right of revision in terms of S. 56(4) — Only revisional order would be final and not the order of original authority — S. 53A (as amended by Bombay Stamp Act) would be of no assistance.Impounding of insufficiently stamped document — Insufficiently stamped document if admitted in evidence, S. 36 gets attracted and Court is prohibited from re-opening matter — The question of judicial determination of matter arises when objection is taken when document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case. Execution of document — Use of Stamp Paper — No expiry date — S. 54 does not require purchaser of Stamp Paper should use it within six months.Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act (7 of 1952), S. 47A(1) (as inserted by Raj. Act 10 of 1982) — Stamp duty — Assessment — Relevant date for determining market value — Stamp duty on sale deed — Current market value at time of execution has to be seen — Fact that purchaser had to litigate for getting sale deed executed — Immaterial. Original Instrument bearing stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description — Copy of such instrument — Neither can be validated by impounding nor can be admitted as secondary evidence — S. 37 applies to document and not copy of document.Impounding of document — Letter containing terms and conditions of agreement to sell immovable property — Nothing to show that rights and interest in property were actually created by oral agreement and letter only incorporated its terms — Letter in question is instrument u/S. 2(14) — Liable to be impounded for non-payment of stamp duty. Presumption as to document 30 years old — Sale deed — Date of execution of document was mentioned as Paushsudi Ekam Samvat 1890 — Document revealed name of seller and purchaser and consideration was also mentioned in it — Names of witnesses were also mentioned and also as to by whom it was written — Possession and ownership of grandfather of defendant on basis of said document can be said to have been proved. 1957 Raj LW 267, Rel. on.Suit for specific performance — Necessary parties — Are one who are parties to contract, their legal representative or person who had purchased contracted property from vendor with or without notice — Any person claiming independent right in property in question, including co-owner or coparcener is not a necessary party to suit for specific performance. 1995 AIR SCW 1782 and AIR 2005 SC 2813, Rel. on.Suit for specific performance — Necessary parties — Are one who are parties to contract, their legal representative or person who had purchased contracted property from vendor with or without notice — Any person claiming independent right in property in question, including co-owner or coparcener is not a necessary party to suit for specific performance. 1995 AIR SCW 1782 and AIR 2005 SC 2813, Rel. on.Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Alternative relief of refund of earnest money — Grant of — Suit property purchased by bona fide purchaser during pendency of suit having no knowledge of prior agreement — Lapse of 19 years — Held, after lapse of so many years property which was sold to bona fide purchaser cannot be ordered to be re-sold to plaintiff prior purchaser — Relief of return of earnest money granted.Relief of specific performance of contract — Entitlement to — Suit filed by prior purchaser — Subsequent purchaser did not have knowledge of agreement between prior purchaser and vendor — Property was already in possession of subsequent purchaser — Hence, prior purchaser would not be entitled to specific performance of contract, in spite of his willingness to perform his part of contract.Suit for specific performance — Impleadment of third party — Third party had semblance of title and interest over property in question by virtue of agreement — Third party can be impleaded in suit as one of the defendants. AIR 2007 SC 3166, Rel. on.Specific performance — Suit for — Agreement for sale between plaintiff and defendants owners — Defendants subsequently sold suit property in favour of appellants — Impleadment of appellants who are subsequent purchasers — Restriction however placed on appellants that they cannot raise plea of readiness and willingness — Proper — Only issue that can be adjudicated in suit is whether appellants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice 2000 AIR SCW 442, Disting.Sale deed — Cancellation — Deed executed when transferor was suffering from alcoholic Psychosis — Fact of his mental illness proved by medical certificate — Deed in question also showing that valuable land was sold at very paltry amount — Sale being by person who was not of sound mind — Liable to be set aside — Unsoundness of mind of transferor — Is finding of fact — No interference permissible in second appeal. 2001 (3) Ker LT 580, Reversed.Temporary injunction — Refusal — Validity — Suit for cancellation of sale deeds — Purchaser under sale deed in question was close relative and adopted son of seller, his right to sell his property was not in dispute — Purchaser had sufficient funds to purchase said agricultural land in question and adoption prima facie appeared to be genuine — Plaintiffs did not have a prima facie case in their favour for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendants from further alienating property or to direct status quo of suit property to be maintained — Validity of sale deed in question will be determined on basis of further evidence — Refusal to grant temporary injunction, proper.Bar to subsequent suit — When not applicable — Withdrawal of earlier suit cannot bar subsequent suit merely because there was some overlapping of cause of action in subsequent suit compared with earlier suit.Suit for permanent injunction — Directing defendants to demolish construction made on encroached land and handover vacant possession — Suit allowed on basis of entries in Revenue records — Decree for permanent injunction in mandatory form passed without deciding title of plaintiff — Is improper. Rajasthan Tenancy Act (3 of 1955), S. 15 — Cancellation of mutation entry — Delay in making reference to Board of Revenue — Effect — If a person has acquired tenancy/khatedari rights and continued to remain in possession of land for number of years — His rights cannot be cancelled after unreasonable delay in a reference proceedings. 2005 AIHC 3906 (Raj), Rel. on.Specific performance — Suit for — Agreement to sell — Defence that time was essence of contract and plaintiff failed to pay within time — Agreement though specified time for execution of sale deed — Stipulation for forfeiture of earnest money in event of failure to execute sale deed also made — Indicates that time was never intended by parties to be of essence — Defendant could not substantiate plea that time was essence of contract and that it was plaintiffs who avoided to perform their part — Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to decree. 1997 AIR SCW 956, Disting. (2004) 8 SCC 689, 1993 AIR SCW 1371, Relied on.

Khatedari rights — Claim for — Possession of plaintiff tenants on land in dispute on date of commencement of Tenancy Act not proved by any cogent evidence — Mere payment of land revenue would not itself prove khatedari rights of plaintiffs over concerned land. Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs ActRajasthan Land Revenue Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Construction of Cinemas, Hotels and Establishment of Petrol Pumps Rules (1978), R. 7 — Application for allotment of land — Scrutiny and enquiry of applications — R. 7(1) gives discretion to Collector to send application for advice of Chief town Planner — Word ‘enquiry’ denotes that in scrutinising application, Collector would collect all information about land in question and invite objections from inhabitants residing in village where land was situated —Order of Collector on its face showing that there has not been judicial exercise of discretion and objections from inhabitants were not invited — Collector has not assigned any reason as to why application was not sent to Chief Town Planner for his advice — Order of allotment set aside.Allotment of agricultural land to landless person - Subsequent cancellation - Ground that petitioner was not a landless person at time of allotment as he held a notional share in ancestral agricultural land of his father - Finding recorded by Additional Collector that petitioner was not a landless person was based on misconstruction and misapplication of relevant law on subject - He based his findings on circular of revenue department but completely ignored schedule appended to Rules of 1955 which was then available on statute book - Order cancelling allotment - Constituted error apparent on face of record -Liable to be set asideRajasthan Tenancy Act (3 of 1955), S. 15 — Khatedari rights — Claim for — Petitioner has not proved that he was in possession over disputed land prior to Samvat 2012, period corresponding to commencement of Rajasthan Tenancy Act — Plaintiff could not be recorded as Khatedar in absence of either any allotment letter in his favour or an order of regularisation based on prolonged possession by competent officer — Plaintiff cannot be allowed to take advantage of wrong entries made in his favour — Mutation in name of plaintiff liable to be cancelled. 1987 RRD 2002, Disting.Reference to Collector — Validity — Land in dispute held to be Abadi land in earlier proceedings — Said decision having attained finality would be binding — State being party to said decision it would not open for State to question nature of land or vesting of title in original title holder — Reference proceedings initiated u/S. 82 questioning nature of land, improper.Allotment of land — To be made in consultation with Advisory committee — Specific quorum of Advisory Committee provided in Rules of 1970 — Then contrary to said rule no quorum can be permitted by administrative order — S. 13(3A) specifically provided that quorum for constituting meeting of Advisory Committee shall be of three members of whom one should be from Member of Legislative Assembly, Pradhan or the Sarpanch — However none of them were members of Advisory Committee and therefore allotment so made would be illegal.Termination of rights and resumption of land — Power as to — Exercised on ground that land was used for non-agricultural purposes and that it was sought to be transferred by holder for non-agricultural purposes — Not improper but within scope of S. 90-B.Mutation — Land in question was entered in name of Deity — Deity is a perpetual minor and rights of deity are to be protected by Courts — Sale of land belonging to deity is void ab initio and no power is vested in purchaser.Finding of fact — Correction of revenue entries — Question as regards to total area of land of a particular khasra number is pure question of fact — Concurrent finding of fact by Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Revenue Board — Cannot be interfered with under writ jurisdiction.Revision — Delay in filing — Revision Petition Challenging order of cancellation of allotment after delay of 13 years whereas only 60 days is provided under the Rules of 1975 to challenge the said order — Revision held barred by laches.aipur Development Authority (Jaipur Region), Building Bye-laws (2000) Bye-law 19.8 — Floor area ratio — Fixation, of — Auction of property — Sale deed stipulating that floor area ratio was 1.0 in terms of bye-laws then existing — Sale deed further providing that buyer gets additional floor area ratio consequent upon any changes in bye-laws — New Bye-laws of 2000 increasing floor area ratio but specifically providing that increase in floor ratio would not apply to plots sold in auction — Effect of such bye-law cannot be ignored — Plea of estoppel cannot be invoked in such case. Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 115. D. B. Civil Spl. Appeal No. 10 of 2005, D/- 2-3-2006 (Raj), Reversed.Modification in Master plan — Notification permitting land use from ecological to residential — Validity — Decision taken in interest of city of Jaipur, growing pressure on land for housing and considering fact that all land was private Khatedari land and was in close vicinity of Jaipur City — Therefore, in order to prevent unplanned housing, JDA allowed housing development on that land — It cannot be said that change of land use was contrary to Secs. 25(1) and 25 (2a) of JDA Act.Closure of public road for development activity — It is necessary to obtain permission of Jaipur Traffic Control Board before digging and closing road — Armed with building permission respondent builder could not have taken upon itself power and authority to close public road — It amount to usurpation of authority by private person — Action of digging/closing of public road without necessary permission held illegal.Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban) Rules (1974), R. 15 — Allotment of land to Indian Oil Corporation for setting up retail outlets — Arbitrariness — Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) is public-sector Undertaking fully owned by Government of India — It is discharging functions of distribution and supply of petrol and other petroleum products thereby serving public demands as per policy laid down by Government which is in furtherance of interest and welfare of public — I.O.C. not required to have permission or licence to set up retail outlets — I.O.C. had allotted ‘A’ sites for setting up retail outlets to physically handicapped candidates and one such site was being run by itself — Action of J.D.A. in deciding to allot these sites to I.O.C. not arbitrary or unreasonable.Power of revocation and modification of permission to development — Competent authority — Permission to development granted by one Commissioner — Cannot be revoked or modified by another Commissioner — Only “Authority” as specified in S.30 could exercise such power — Power given to ‘Authority’ u/S. 30 could not be exercised by Commissioner.Auction of plot — Auction held in violation of interim order directing to maintain status quo by High Court — Subsequent dismissal of writ petition — JDA would be bound by terms and conditions of auction — It can only be cancelled by a declaration made by Civil Court — JDA cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong and allowed to make party suffer which had complied with all terms and conditions of auction and had further invested huge amount — Reallowing JDA to reauction land would put premium on wrong cancellation of registry by JDA.Cancellation of sale deed — Party to registry of sale/lease deed has no right to cancel same and normal course open is to file civil suit for cancellation — In case sale is effected in violation of some statutory mandatory provision of law, consequence given in statute will be taken into consideration — Even then show cause notice is necessary as sale stands complete as soon as the auction is knocked down in favour of party.Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules (1974), Rr. 15, 15-B — Settlement of land — By negotiation through single window clearance system without any advertisement of same for auction — Not improper — Provisions of law pertaining to the JDA Act and Rules of 1974 were fully observed — Decision was taken on basis of recommendation of Board of Infrastructure Development and Investment Promotion (BIDI) which was highest policy-making body of State — No interference.Effect of non-registration - Agreement of sale written on plain paper and not registered - Would not confer any right, title or interest to transferee - Transferee acquiring possession of suit shop in part performance of agreement - Transferee at the most can avail benefit of S. 53-A of T. P. Act only as shield and not as sword. Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), S. 53-A.Cancellation of registered Sale Deed — Inherent power of registering authority — Fraudulent transfer of property — Sale takes place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee — Is void — True owner can nullify sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court — Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered — Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Ss. 31, 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. General Clauses ActUnregistered sale deed — Is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration — However petitioner is not debarred from proving said document on record and use same for collateral transaction.Documents requiring registration — Mortgage by deposit of title deeds — Does not require registration.Effect of non-registration — Affidavit (relinquishment document) only conveying intention of members of family to relinquish their rights in favour of their mother — It was not document which by itself extinguished or created any rights — Non-registration of document would be of no consequence.Withholding of Registration of document — Not permissible on instructions of Collector-cum-Addl. Secretary (Revenue) — Reason being, powers of Registering authority is circumscribed by Act to factum of execution and identity of person executing document — Collector has no appellate or revisional powers over Registering Authority under Act — Executive instructions cannot override express provisions of statute.Refusal to register documents — Power of Sub-Registrar — Pendency of dispute of title /absence of title with vendor — Cannot be treated as valid ground/reason for refusal to register sale deed.Sale deed — Endorsement by Sub-Registrar about registration — Presumption as to execution of deed and payment of sale consideration — Rebuttal — Executant lady was illiterate woman who could not read or write — She was issueless widow who observed parda all along while appearing before public authorities etc. — She treated defendant as her son and reposed full confidence in him — Evidence showing lump sum papers were put up before lady for obtaining her signatures and thumb impressions by defendant while she was sitting in rickshaw covered from all sides — Immediately thereafter she went back on pre-arranged taxi for her abode — All these circumstances speak against defendant and presumption in question was held to be rebutted by strong evidence.Registration of document — Proof of due execution of document — Execution of document is not mere signing it — But, signing by way of assent to terms of contract embodied in document — Mere proof or admission that person’s signature appears on document cannot by itself amount to execution of document — Registration does not dispense with necessity of proof of execution when the same is denied.

Document would be a conveyance when it is executed as sale and intention of party is to transfer right, title and interest in property — Sellers did not append their signature on disputed sale deed — Document remained incomplete — Will not be covered by definition of —

Registration of document — Proceedings before Registrar are of quasi judicial nature — Signature on document alleged to have been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence and mistake by executant — Registering Authority has no jurisdiction to go into these questions — Aforesaid questions have to be gone into by competent Civil Court — Person who is aggrieved by finding of Registrar can challenge sale deed under S. 31 of Specific Relief Act, in competent civil Court — Civil Court shall go into issue regarding due execution independently, on basis of evidence adduced before it , without in any way being influenced by finding of Registrar.Suit for registration of sale deed — Suit in substance was for direction to defendant vendor to execute and register sale deed, since vendor had already received the entire sale consideration — Such suit would be maintainable under S. 77 of Act.Unregistered contract of sale — Suit for mandatory injunction seeking direction for registration of document — Not main-tainable — Moving application u/S. 73 of Registration Act is condition precedent for institution of such suit.Unregistered agreement of sale – Is inadmissible in evidence — Cannot be taken into consideration for passing a decree for its specific performance in favour of the plaintiff.Document not duly stamped — Document cannot be admitted for any purpose — Not even for a collateral purpose — Difference between S. 49, Registration Act and S. 34, KS Act, stated.Document not duly stamped — Admitted in evidence without any objection being raised — Court is not obliged to act upon or enforce it for all purposes thereafter, without requirement of payment of duty and penalty — Court cannot direct execution of a sale deed in specific, performance of an agreement of sale, when agreement is not duly stamped.Admission of document in evidence — Suit for permanent injunction based on allegations of infringement of trade mark — Photo copies of registration certificates of trade mark produced by plaintiff before Court — Endorsement of photo copies by Court and marking them as exhibits subject to objection as to its proof and admissibility — Is erroneous, being contrary to procedure prescribed by O. 13, R. 4. Trade and Merchandise Marks Act (43 of 1958), S. 36.Temporary injunction — Entitlement to — Plaintiff was owner of property by virtue of registered sale deed executed in his favour — Revenue records showed possession of plaintiff and attempts made by defendant to get revenue entries changed failed — Defendant claimed agreement to sell in his favour — Agreement not registered — Thus possession claimed on basis of part performance of agreement to sell, could not be read in evidence for want of registration — Plaintiff held entitled to grant of temporary injunction restraining defendant from interfering with his possession.Oral agreements — Evidence relating to — Admissibility — Agreement to sale — Terms of agreement having been written and registered under Registration Act — Subsequent oral agreements in this respect would be barred under S. 92 of Evidence Act — No evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted.Registered document — Has lot of sanctity attached to it — Sanctity cannot be allowed to be lost without following proper procedure — Registered power of attorney — Mere filing of criminal complaint against power of attorney-holder — Not sufficient to revoke power of attorney.Estoppel — Revenue proceedings for mutation — Sister—™s statement before revenue authorities relinquishing her rights in favour of her brother — Mutation entry recording name of brother as exclusive owner, held binding on sister — She is estopped from contending contrary to her statement — Plea that there was no waiver, the relinquishment being not in writing and not registered — Not tenable — Sister cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own wrongs — Even if such statement is treated as family arrangement such statement is still binding as family arrangement may be oral and in each case registration is not necessary. AIR 1976 SC 807, Rel. on. Registration Act (16 of 1908), S. 17. Hindu LawDocument not compulsorily registrable — Agreement to sell — No stipulation in agreement indicating that possession of land was handed over to plaintiff vendee — S. 53A of T.P. Act would not apply to such situation — Document not required to be compulsorily registered. Rejection of plaint — R. 11(d) of O. 7 has limited application — Conclusion that suit is barred under any Law must be drawn from averments made in plaint.Rejection of plaint — For invoking R. 11(d) of O. 7, no amount of evidence can be looked into — At that stage issues on merit of matter would not be within realm of Court.Rejection of plaint — Defect of misjoinder of parties and causes of action — Not a ground for rejection of plaint. 2005 (4) Cal HN 664, Reversed.Impleadment of party — Transferee pending suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Transfer made by transferees from defendant without leave of Court — Cannot claim impleadment in view of doctrine of lis pendens — Order impleading them on ground that there was nobody to represent and safeguard their interest — Liable to be set aside.Rejection of plaint — Suit for partition — Plaintiffs claiming to be sons of defendant through his first wife demanded share in suit properties — Plea by defendant that plaintiffs are not his children and even if they are illegitimate children, they have no right over suit properties — Not a sufficient ground to reject plaint — Averments in plaint disclosed cause of action — No material to invoke O. 7, R. 11 — Application for rejection of plaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. AIR 1997 Kant 77, Approved. 2005 (2) Mad LW 487, Foll.Rejection of Plaint — Ground that plaintiff has got no legal and constitutional right of preemption claimed in plaint — Same cannot be considered while dealing with plaint under O. 7, R. 11 — Court has only to see whe-ther plaint discloses cause of action — Rejection of plaint — Not proper.Application for rejection of plaint — Filing of written statement is not necessary for deciding application u/O. 7, R. 11 for rejection of plaint. AIR 2003 SC 759, Rel. on.Rejection of plaint – Application for – At stage of O. 7, R. 11 defence case is not to be considered – If defendant raises any contentious issue or dispute regarding maintainability of suit – Opportunity should be given to parties to lead defence after framing of issues – Summary rejection of plaint, improper.Rejection of plaint - Agreement between appellant and respondent association - Appellant agreed to build and develop property, owned by ~4~ Appellant was to call upon the respondent by notice, to register a lease deed in respect of property, except the ground and first floor - Respondent accordingly called upon but no lease executed - Building completed in 1984 - Letter written on 4.11.84 - Suit for various reliefs filed in July 1990 - Phrase, 'barred by law' - If does not include operation of Limitation Act, 1963 - Receiver found that respondent had executed lease deeds on 3.4.88, 16.7.88 and 19.4.99 - Various claims made. Held that statement in plaint does not show if it is barred by law.Rejection of plaint — Absence of cause of action — Conclusion as to — To be drawn from totality of averments made in plaint.When limitation is the pure question of law and from the pleadings itself it becomes apparent that a suit is barred by limitation, then, of course, is the duty of the court to decide limitation at the outset even in the absence of a plea. However, in cases where the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the suit does not appear to be barred by limitation on the face of it, then the facts necessary to prove limitation must be pleaded, an issue raised and then proved.An application for rejection of the plaint can be filed if the allegations made in the plaint even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety appear to be barred by any law. The question as to whether a suit is barred by limitation or not would, therefore, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. For the said purpose, only the averments made in the plaint are relevant. At this stage, the court would not be entitled to consider the case of the defence.Specific performance of - Respondent entered into agreement both on behalf of himself and his sister in respect of property jointly held by them in half share - Sister refused to accept the agreement - Held that the agreement can be enforced against the respondent in respect of his share of the property - Section 12 not attracted as the case not related to part of the contract but whole of the contract so far as the respondent was concerned.Agreement to sell house property - Agreement by vendor (husband) - Representation that he was absolute owner on partition among brothers and had no male child and that none else has any right over property - Vendee not having any knowledge that vendor's wife was owner to the extent of half share, which devolved upon her due to death of her son - If agreement can be enforced against vendor to the extent of half share. Held that the agreement does not fall under sub-section (2), (3) or (4) of Section 12 of Specific Relief Act, but it can be enforced in part i.e. to the extent of half share.Doctrine of lis pendens — Applicability — Suit seeking declaration of Khatedari rights — Suit property transferred to third party during pendency of suit despite fact that alienation was prohibited — Such transfer would be hit by doctrine of lis pendens — Subsequent transferees cannot be impleaded in suit.Interim relief — Grant of — Court while granting interim relief granted main relief itself — This is impermissible.Substituted service — Directions for, issued without recording satisfaction that defendants cannot be served personally — No efforts made to get defendants served personally in ordinary way — Service of summons cannot be considered to be sufficient and in accordance with law.Presumption of service – Summons sent by registered post on correct address with acknowledgment due – Addressee avoided services and did not accept summons even after having knowledge and information from postman – Addressee would be deemed to have been served and presumption of service in law can be made.Presumption of service of summons — When not available — Despite orders of Court to effect substituted service, summons were not served by affixture — Instead copy of summons was served on brother of defendant — Such service would not only be irregular but illegal, void and contrary to directions of Court — There would be no presumption of service — Ex parte decree liable to be set aside.Notice sent by registered post — Presumption of service — Notice sent at correct address of place where petitioner was working viz. State Bank of India — Endorsement of refusal by Postman in respect of said notice not rebutted by petitioner — Presumption of due service can be raised. Evidence Act Unstamped document — Decree/judgment can be passed on basis of unstamped document after recovering duty chargeable along with penalty. AIR 1986 HP 75, Rel. on.Admissibility of unstamped document — Objection not raised earlier when document was admitted in evidence — Admissibility cannot be questioned at subsequent stage — Provisions of S. 61 cannot be invoked before trial Court by raising an objection after document is admitted in evidence but S. 61 of Act is applicable at appellate stage.Unstamped document — Admissibility in evidence — Suit for recovery of mortgage money — Document sought to be produced to prove transaction should be compulsorily stamped — Even if document is used for collateral purpose or otherwise — It does not escape stamp duty u/S. 34 of Act. Secondary evidence — Copy of document insufficiently stamped — Cannot be permitted to be led in suit even though objection of its admissibility was not taken under Evidence Act — Party can only be allowed to rely on document which is an instrument for purpose of S. 35 of Stamp Act and S. 36 does not apply to secondary evidence adduced in Court, contents of document unstamped or insufficiently stamped.Stamp Act (2 of 1899), S. 35 — Family arrangement — Koor Chit which was unstamped and unregistered document of partition — Cannot be looked into even for collateral purpose of adverse possession.Presumption as to document thirty years old - Presumption can be raised at any stage including appellate stage - However belated claim of presumption would not by itself confer any right on other party to claim opportunity to lead evidence in rubuttal.Non-Registration of sale deed – Effect – Fully proved that land in question was sold to respondents for Rs. 1025 and possession was handed over to them - Only on basis that document is not registered, cannot be said that land is not sold to respondents & respondents are only trespassers.Certified copy of sale deed — Refusal to admit — Validity — Original sale deed was lying in another suit pending in same Court — Sale deed being not a public document, only remedy available with plaintiff was to summon file of civil original suit in which original sale deed was filed.Objection as to admissibility of document — Required to be decided forthwith and immediately — Postponing decision on such objection would be contrary to object with which CPC was amended in year 2002, namely, to expedite trial — Consequently postponing decision on objection as to admissibility of evidence until final arguments on suit held erroneous.Document not compulsorily registrable — Agreement to sell — No stipulation in agreement indicating that possession of land was handed over to plaintiff vendee — S. 53A of T.P. Act would not apply to such situation — Document not required to be compulsorily registered.Insufficient stamp duty — Suit for permanent injunction — Deed of declaration marked on plaintiff’s side — Said deed is unilateral document relating to certain rights — Does not require stamp duty — Document marked without paying adequate stamp duty — Not improper. AIR 2001 SC 1158, (2001) 1 MLJ 1, Relied on.Regarding admitting document in evidence — Is at stage of hearing of suit itself and not at stage of hearing of application for temporary injunction.Temporary injunction — Grant of — For purpose of forming opinion upon prima facie case, Court is required to apply its mind to pleadings of plaint as well as reply, if filed in suit or to application filed under O. 39, Rules 1 and 2 — Court is not required to give finding upon disputed question.Permanent injunction — Plaintiff not coming to Court with clean hands and suppressing material facts — Would not be entitled to relief of injunction.Interim injunction — One who seeks equitable relief under O. 39, Rule 6, is also required to come with clean hands and not suppress material facts — Plaintiff found to be guilty of suppressio veri suggestio falsi for having concealed material information from scrutiny of Court — Refusal to grant injunction — ProperRevocation of licence by owner - Licensee not being in “possession” no question of dispossession - Injunction against owner - Cannot be granted on ground of apprehension of “dispossession” without due process of law.Estoppel — Contract of life insurance — Person making a wrong statement with knowledge of consequence therefor — Estopped from pleading that even if such a fact had been disclosed, it would not have made any material change. Insurance Act (4 of 1938), Pre.S. 145 deals with de facto possession and not dejure possession — No oral or documentary evidence to determine actual physical possession of petitioner — Possession was with other party — Merely because of pendency of mutation proceeding it could not be said that other party was not in possession of landed property — Restoration of possession to other party — Not improper.Prevention of breach of peace – Power of Magistrate – Merely because civil suit is pending relating to property in dispute, jurisdiction of Magistrate to proceed u/S. 145 is not taken away – Order of status quo passed by Revenue Court – Hands of Magistrate are not tied for purpose and object of proceedings u/S. 145 to maintain law & order & to prevent breach of peace – Order for attachment of property by Magistrate – Not illegal.Dispute as to property — Appointment of receiver — Magistrate cannot summarily pass an order under Section 146(1) without recording a preliminary order under S. 145(1) — However, taking into consideration events that had taken place, direction issued that present arrangement has to be continued until Magistrate takes requisite steps to preserve public peace and to avoid any law and order problem.Order passed under S. 145 — Mandatory requirements — Order passed without passing of preliminary order under S. 145(1) — Held, not passing of preliminary order under sub-sec. (1) of S. 145 of Cr. P. C. vitiates entire proceedings — Merely sending a notice is itself not sufficient to comply mandatory requirements under S. 145(1) 2004 Cri LJ 91 (Mad) and 2003 Cri LJ 3820 (Mad), Rel. on.Breach of peace — Mere information that a dispute is likely to cause a breach of peace — Is not sufficient to exercise powers u/S. 145 of Cr. P.C. — Person who is in possession of property in dispute cannot be disposed and receiver cannot be appointed merely on basis of such an information — When petitioner himself was in possession of Ashram, it was duty of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Police to give him protection, instead of initiating proceedings under S. 145(1) of Cr. P.C. or passing orders u/S. 146(1) of Cr. P.C.Proceedings for breach of peace — Initiation of — Failure of Magistrate to assign any ground for his satisfaction that dispute had given rise to serious apprehension of breach of peace — Moreover dispute, if any between parties was a private dispute, which did not involve people in locality — Hence, such a dispute could not have been made foundation for drawing of proceeding under S. 145. AIR 1985 SC 472, Rel. on.Order passed by Magistrate under S. 145 — Civil Court may still in suit pass order of injunction. Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 39, R. 1.Dispute over title of property — Proceedings under S. 145 — Triable issue had been raised by plaintiff — Plaintiff had been residing with his family over structure raised by him over disputed property — Both balance of convenience as also irreparable injury lie in favour of plaintiff — Defendant had been kept out of possession for long time — In circumstances order of injunction in favour of plaintiff would have subserved interest of justice — Direction therefore issued to parties to maintain status quo till decision of Civil Court. Cri. Misc. No. 1709 of 2008, D/- 19-6-2008 (Ker.), Reversed.Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), Ss. 4, 5, 20 — Offence of dishonour of cheque — Evidence on affidavit — S. 145 of N.I. Act has overriding effect on provisions of Criminal P. C. providing contrary procedure for complainant—™s evidence at stage of enquiry or trial — Evidence of complainant may be given on affidavit not only during course of trial but even at pre-summoning stage i.e. before issue of process pursuant to S. 204 of Criminal P.C.Document not compulsorily registrable — Family settlement — Document simply reciting past events — Need not be registered — Unstamped and unregistered family settlement and map annexed thereto can be allowed to be exhibited. AIR 1988 SC 881, Rel. on.Decree for a specific performa is in discretion of Court but is not to be refused arbitrarily -the claimant must come to Court with clean hands - Respondent was bonafide purchaser for value without notice - Courts rightly refused to exercise discretion - Appeal dismissed.Suppression of material fact is viewed seriously by the Superior Courts exercising their discretionary jurisdictionTemporary injunction — Suppression of material fact — Party suppressing material fact not entitled to equitable relief of injunction.Injunction — Balance of convenience — Must be held to be in favour of granting information — No injunction can be granted only if there is prima facie case but no balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of plaintiff.Question of balance of convenience and irreparable loss — Respondent acquiring right of development of suit property — Interim order preventing development would case irreparable loss and injury to respondent since it would not be able to utilize property till suit and appeal is disposed of — Respondent therefore permitted to carry out construction activities over disputed land, however restrained from alienating or transferring property or from creating any third party right therein during pendency of suit.Injunction — Grant of — Besides consideration of basic elements, Court must consider conduct of parties.Injunction against dispossession — Refusal to grant ad interim ex parte injunction — Appeal against — Order of appellate Court ordering status quo without indicating what the status quo was — Not proper.Unregistered sale deed - Admissibility - Suit for specific performance of contract - Defendantss case that plaintiff fraudulently obtained signatures on sale deed by stating it to be an agreement for sale and hence its registration was refused - Unregistered sale deed tendered as evidence - Plaintiffs case that sale deed executed by defendants not registered due to order of attachment of property - Same held to be inadmissible by trial court - Revision petition - Dismissed by High Court. Held having regard to the proviso to Section 49 the courts below erred in not admitting the unregistered sale deed. Under the proviso unregistered document affecting immovable property and required to be registered by 1908 Act/ Transfer of Property Act, 1882 may be admitted as evidence of contract in a suit for specific performance or of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. Thus an unregistered sale deed was admissible as proof of an oral agreement of sale but not as evidence of a completed sale.

Specific performance of contract — Not enforceable qua writ, particularly when damages can be awarded. Ready and willing to perform — Pleading and proof — Specific performance — Suit for — Plaintiff has to show that his conduct has been blemishless throughout — Provision imposes personal bar in event of plaintiff failing to do so — In suit, there was claim in respect of particular khasra number which did not form part of agreement — Plaint itself indicated that said khasra number was added later on — There was also an averment to effect that agreement related to a completed sale — Dismissal of suit on ground that requirements of S. 16(c) were not met — No interference. 2005 AIR SCW 4789, 2000 AIR SCW 2554, 1999 AIR SCW 2959, AIR 1968 SC 1355, Rel. on.Impleadment of party — Transferee pending suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Transfer made by transferees from defendant without leave of Court — Cannot claim impleadment in view of doctrine of lis pendens — Order impleading them on ground that there was nobody to represent and safeguard their interest — Liable to be set aside. 2007 (1) AIR Jhar R 254 : AIR 2007 (NOC) 520 (Jhar), Reversed. Impleadment of party — Transferee pending suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Transfer made by transferees from defendant without leave of Court — Cannot claim impleadment in view of doctrine of lis pendens — Order impleading them on ground that there was nobody to represent and safeguard their interest — Liable to be set aside. 2007 (1) AIR Jhar R 254 : AIR 2007 (NOC) 520 (Jhar), Reversed. Plaintiffs alleging that first defendant executed agreement of sale in their favour — Denied by first defendant — Burden to prove that first defendant had executed agreement would be on plaintiff and not on first defendant to prove the negative — Various circumstances when taken together, creating doubt about the genuineness of agreement and dislodge effect of evidence adduced by plaintiff — Dismissal of suit — Was proper.Amendment of plaint — Suit for specific performance of contract to sell — Mistake in description of suit property in plaint — Amendment sought to rectify mistake in plaint as well as in contract — Can be allowed in view of S. 26 — Nature of suit not changed by amendment.Amendment of plaint — Suit for specific performance of contract to sell — Mistake in description of suit property in plaint — Amendment sought to rectify mistake in plaint as well as in contract — Can be allowed in view of S. 26 — Nature of suit not changed by amendment.Specific performance — Relief of, is discretionary — Considerations relevant for grant of such relief.The discretion u/S. 34 which the Court has to exercise is a judicial discretion. That discretion has to be exercised on well-settled principles. Therefore, the Court has consider the nature of obligation in respect of which performance is sought, circumstances under which the decision came to be made, the conduct of the parties and the effect of the Court granting the decree. In such cases, the Court has to look at the contract. The Court has to ascertain whether there exists an element of mutuality in the contract. If there is absence of mutuality the Court will not exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiff. Even if, want of mutuality is regarded as discretionary and not as an absolute bar to specific performance the Court has to consider the entire conduct of the parties in relation to the subject-matter and in case of any disqualifying circumstances the Court will not grant the relief prayed for.Agreement to reconvey property — Time is of essence in such agreements — No evidence showing that plaintiff had offered to pay consideration in time fixed — Plaintiff’s claim liable to be dismissed. Contract ActSuit for specific performance — Agreement to sell — Vendor having no authority to sell property at time of execution of agreement with plaintiff — Agreement has no legal sanction — Suit on basis thereof is incompetent — Subsequent sale of property to third party — Third party found to be bona fide purchaser for value without notice — Sale is protected by S. 19(b) — Refusal of relief of specific performance to plaintiff — Proper.Agreement to sell — Specific performance of — Contract made by agent of purchasers — Purchasers knowing fully well that owner of property would not sell property to them in view of earlier disputes between them entered into agreement with third person as their agent — That third person by misrepresenting that he wanted to purchase property for himself obtained consent of owners of property — Such consent obtained by fraud or misrepresentation is not free consent — Such contract is voidable at instance of owner — Fact that third person was agent of purchasers was disclosed for first time in notice for specific performance — Hence even under S. 231 owners can refuse to fulfill contract — Decree for specific performance liable to be set aside.Agreement to sell share in coparcenary property — Relief of specific performance — Grant of — Vendor cosharer entering into contract in respect of his share as also on behalf of other co-sharer — Denial on part of other co-sharers to sell their share on ground of no authority being given to vendor co-sharer — In such case decree for specific performance can be granted to extent of share of vendor co-sharer — After purchase of share of vendor, vendee would step into shoes of vendor and would become co-sharer and can always seek partition.Void agreement — Defendant, under belief that virtue of allotment order itself he had authority to sell away property, which he got allotted from Development Authority — Allotment order showed by defendant to plaintiff and the latter believed that defendant had authority to sell away said property in her favour and under that belief she agreed to purchase same — Both plaintiff and defendant proceeded with transaction under a mistake as to fact that defendant had authority under said allotment order to sell property and, therefore, they entered into said agreement of sale — Said mistake of fact was mutual between both parties besides being essential for said agreement — By virtue of provisions of S. 20 said agreement of sale became void and unenforceable in law.

Hindu Law - – Joint family property – Alienation by Karta is permissible for legal necessity — Karta executing agreement to sell – He cannot subsequently avoid execution of sale deed on ground that his wife and son also had share in joint family property – Question whether sale was for legal necessity would arise after alienation was challenged – If sale was for legal necessity, it would bind every one including son – If aggrieved, son may seek to have the alienation set aside.Limitation Act (36 of 1963) - Art. 58 — Suit for declaration — Limitation —Sale deedd executed by power of attorney holder — Limitation for challenging the power of attorney and the sale deed was to be from the date of registration of the said document, especially when, possession was also handed over to vendors in pursuance to the sale deed and mutation was also duly sanctioned — Suit filed after expiry of 3 years — Barred by limitation.Temporary injunction to restrain alienation of property — Suit for cancellation of sale deed pending — Power of Attorney holder misused his authority and executed sale deed in favour of third party — Third party was in physical possession of property — Court restrained third party from alienating land as agricultural land was being sold for purposes of colonisation Possibility of fraud also not ruled out since Power of Attorney holder had execute sale deed in favour of his wife.Bar to subsequent suit — When not applicable — Withdrawal of earlier suit cannot bar subsequent suit merely because there was some overlapping of cause of action in subsequent suit compared with earlier suit.First appeal — New plea — Pure question of law — Can be raised at any time.Temporary injunction — Refusal — Validity — Suit for cancellation of sale deeds — Purchaser under sale deed in question was close relative and adopted son of seller, his right to sell his property was not in dispute — Purchaser had sufficient funds to purchase said agricultural land in question and adoption prima facie appeared to be genuine — Plaintiffs did not have a prima facie case in their favour for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendants from further alienating property or to direct status quo of suit property to be maintained — Validity of sale deed in question will be determined on basis of further evidence — Refusal to grant temporary injunction, properCourt fees — Determination — Suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed — Suit property was agricultural land — Word —œvalue of the property— and not —market value— of property is used in S. 6(iv)(ha) — Hence value of property for which sale deed was executed would be relevant and not its market value for determining Court fees.Delay in filing appeal — Condonation application — Application should be decided first — Posting the matter at time of final hearing of appeal, improper.Suit for declaration that mutation was illegal, null and void — No pleadings or evidence as to date on which plaintiff had derived knowledge about mutation and/or Will — Suit, rightly held as barred by limitation considering pleadings as a whole as set out in plaint.Revision petition — Delay in filing — Condonation of — What counts is not length of delay but sufficiency of cause.Condonation of delay — Sufficient cause — —œLiberal approach— — Does not mean doing injustice to opposite party — Application to set aside abatement — Made belatedly — Ground raised for condonation not sufficient and also unbelievable — Delay cannot be condoned — Provisions of O. 22, R. 9 cannot be so construed so as to make it redundant. Highly belated appeal — Against award of reference Court — Condonation of delay — Appellant beneficiary informed about decision taken by Govt. to not file appeal — Yet indulging in making representation to Govt. — Filing appeal long after lapse of limitation — Beneficiary thus was not diligent in availing remedy of appeal — Delay not liable to be condoned.S. 5 — Delay in filing revision — Condonation of — “Sufficient cause’ — Delay of 36 days sought to be explained by bald statement that petitioner was suffering from viral fever and doctor had advised bed rest — No medical certificate produced to that effect — Explanation not credible — Delay cannot be condoned. Revision challenging order issuing process — Date of service of summons is the date of knowledge for revision petitioner to seek remedy of revision — Limitation would start from date of knowledge.Revision filed after expiry of about two decades — Liable to be dismissed — Revisional powers cannot be used arbitrarily at belated stage. Interpretation of statutes — Purpose and object of enactment.Order setting applicant ex parte — Application for cancellation of — Limitation — Application u/O. 9, R. 7 shall be governed by Art. 137 which prescribes period of three years.Review — “Error apparent on face of record” — Decision is erroneous in law or different view on law or fact in possible — Not ground for review.Review — “Error apparent on face of record” — Will not encompass an error which is not self evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning — Re-hearing and correction of erroneous decision — Not permissible under O. 47, R. 1 — Review Petition cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.Review — Judgment in question — Cannot be reconsidered on self same grounds just because another conclusion is possible — Scope of review cannot be confused with that of appeal. Error apparent on face of record — Alleged error far from self evident — Can be established only by lengthy and complicated arguments — Not an error apparent on face of record.Power of review — Exercise of — Is permissible on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of person seeking review or could not be produced by him at time when order was made — It can be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on face of record is found — But it cannot be exercised on ground that decision was erroneous on merits.Causing death by negligence — Proof — Deceased was crushed underneath left rear tyres of truck — Accident had taken place at crowded place — How deceased came in contact with rear left tyres of truck and was crushed, not stated by witness — Prosecution had not examined any independent eye-witness — No necessary facts on record to prove rash or negligent driving by truck driver — Acquittal of accused, properCourt empowered to discharge accused if two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion – Whether trial will end in conviction or acquittal – Not relevant at this stage.Framing of charge — Charges can be framed if Court finds two views are possible from materials produced on record — But if only one and one view is possible to be taken — Court cannot put accused to harassment by asking him to face trial. Constitution of IndiaCausing death by negligence — Proof — Accused allegedly driving tempo-truck at high speed hit motor cyclist — Path of movement of vehicles must be sought to be established in course of investigation and not be left open to ambiguity and doubt — Questions whether motor cyclist was taking turn on a green light or a red light and so too whether petitioner was driving tempo/truck crossing green light or a red light remained unanswered as site plan had not been exhibited — Non-examination of investigating officer resulted in prejudice being caused to accused — Testimony of head constable that accused was driving vehicle at “high speed” — Expression “high speed” is an unclear expression — No evidence to conclusively indicate that accused was driving vehicle in rash and negligent manner — Accused is entitled to be acquitted. 1998 SCC (Cri) 1508 Folletting aside ex parte decree — Expression sufficient cause— — Meaning — Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. Words and Phrases — Sufficient cause— — Meaning. Notice served by registered post as well as by publication in newspaper — Presumption of service — Presumption cannot be rebutted by bald statement made by wife that she was living at different address with her brother — Respondent wife made no attempt to establish there had been fraud or collusion between husband and postman — No case that “National Herald†daily newspaper published from Delhi did not have wide circulation in Delhi or in area where wife was residing with her brother — Ex parte decree, not liable to be set aside.

Neither the transferor 'J' nor the transferee 'S' took steps for incorporating change of ownership in the certificate of registration. Hence, 'J' must be deemed to continue as the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of the Act and was therefore equally liable for payment of compensation. As insurance policy was in his name he would be indemnified and the claim would shift to the insurer. Temporary injunction — Suit for partition — Plaintiffs on one side claimed that they were entitled to property as Class II heirs of deceased and defendant on other side claimed property on basis of Will — Issue as to who would be entitled, and shares to which they would be entitled to, required to be decided by trial Court — During pendency of proceedings before trial Court, property needs to be protected — Defendant restrained from transferring or from selling property in dispute, but with liberty to carry out repairs for maintenance of property.Grant of bail — Denial — Legality — Petitioner accused alleged to have committed offence under Ss. 447 and 302 of Penal Code — Although accused was minor, his application seeking bail was rejected — Plea by accused that gravity of offence committed cannot be ground for declining bail to juvenile as S. 12 was mandatory — Was tenable — As per S. 12 bail should be granted to juvenile irrespective of nature or gravity of offence — And in absence of exceptional circumstances for denying bail — Order rejecting bail to accused was liable to be set aside.Temporary injunction — Refusal — Validity — Suit filed for declaration of sale deed as ineffective and to return Land in dispute back to plaintiff — In such case, in order to protect interest of parties, trial Court should have directed that parties should maintain status quo — Such an order would have prevented emergence of third party rights and also emergence of future litigation — Refusal to grant injunction, improper.Dishonour of Cheque — Signed blank cheque issued by drawer-accused — Extent of liability disputed — As yet, drawee/complainant filled-up cheque for an amount not admitted by drawer — Accused able to prove that there is bona fide dispute with regard to extent of liability — Dishonour of cheque under such circumstance does not attract prosecution u/S. 138 of N. I. Act — Dismissal of complaint is proper.Dishonour of Cheque — Words —œfor discharge of any debt or other liability— in S. 138 — Should be interpreted to mean current existing or past ascertained liabilities — Appellant-Company supplied products on credit to dealers — Dealers required to deposit signed blank cheques as a security for credit supply — Such cheques issued in respect of future liabilities not in existence as on the date of cheque would not attract prosecution u/S. 138 of N.I. Act. AIR 2003 SC 3014, Disting.Dishonour of cheque — Statutory presumption is in favour of holder that cheque has been issued for discharge of debt or liability — Defence of accused has to be specific as to why cheque was issued — If it was issued for purpose of security or any other purpose then cheque issued did not come within purview of S. 138 of Act.

It is well-known that the appellate court would not interfere with a judgment of acquittal only because another view is possible. On the other hand, if two views are possible, it is trite, the appellate court shall not interfere. It is one of those cases, where two views were not possible.Application for setting aside ex parte order — Maintainability — Hearing of suit completed and suit adjourned for pronouncing judgment — Order 9, R. 7 would have no application — Order cannot be set aside by invoking O. 9, R. 7 or S. 151.An order passed by a person lacking inherent jurisdiction would be a nullity. The principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or even res judicata which are procedural in nature would have no application in a case where an order has been passed by the Tribunal/Court which has no authority in that behalf. Any order passed by a Court without jurisdiction would be coram non judice being a nullity, the same ordinarily should not be given effect to. However, a distinction must be made between a decree passed by a Court which has no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction in the light of Section 21 and a decree passed by a Court having no jurisdiction in regard to the subject-matter of the suit. Whereas in the former case, the appellate Court may not interfere with the decree unless prejudice is shown, ordinarily the second category of the cases would be interfered with.Amendment of pleading — Permissibility — Amendment even if permitted was not advancing case of plaintiff — Proposed amendment was not consistent with case set up in plaint — Order refusing permission to amendment of pleadings proper.Amendment of written statement — Application filed after commencement of trial — No justifiable and cogent reasons for delay in moving amendment application given — Finding recorded that facts sought to be incorporated by amendment were in knowledge of petitioner and that amendment if allowed would materially change nature of dispute — Rejection of amendment application, proper.Defendants by way of amendment making all efforts to build up different but incompatible aspects of defence and in that exercise have placed on record several doubtful documents — Amendment as prayed for was not appear bona fide and allowing same would be causing serious prejudice to plaintiff — Amendment cannot be allowed.Withdrawal of admission — Permissibility — Admission once made is binding on party — In another case also admission written statements were filed — It cannot be said that written statement was due to misrepresentation or fraud as alleged — No details of fraud, misrepresentation given — Admission cannot be withdrawn by way of amendment.Withdrawal of admission — Permissibility — Suit for partition — By way of amendment defendant-petitioner wanted to bring on fact that all shops were constructed on land which was not ancestral — Proposed amendment had effect of withdrawal of clear admission made in written statement by defendant that shops were constructed on land which came into his share — Rejection of amendment, proper.

Amendment of written statement — Withdrawal of admission earlier made by way of amendment —Not permissible — Such amendment cannot be allowed.Amendment seeking withdrawal of admission made in written statement and completely substituting original written statement by new one — Not permissibleDeceased died due to motor-cycle accident — Back tier of vehicle burst and deceased fell down and received head injury — Tribunal dismissed claim application on ground that it was case of self accident of owner and driver of vehicle and no third party involved — Errone-ous — Whenever any accident occurs causing death or injury to a person in course of use of vehicle jurisdiction of Claims Tribu-nal arises — Matter remitted to Tribunal.Accident claim — Entitlement to compensation — Married daughter of deceased — Though not dependant on deceased is entitled to compensation — She is ‘legal representative’ under S. 166. 2004 (1) Cal LJ 205, Reversed.Unstamped and unregistered document, even if not admissible in evidence, can be looked into for collateral purpose — Plaintiff therefore can be allowed to lead secondary evidence in respect of such document. AIR 2003 SC 1905, Foll.Dishonour of cheque — Complaint — Averments that notice sent under S. 138 Proviso (b) was evaded by accused or that accused had played role in return of notice unserved — Not necessary in view of presumption under S. 27 of G. C. Act. General Clauses Act Dishonour of cheque — Complaint — Averments that notice sent under S. 138 Proviso (b) was evaded by accused or that accused had played role in return of notice unserved — Not necessary in view of presumption under S. 27 of G. C. Act. General Clauses Act

Condonation of delay — Appellant illiterate villagers going place to place for work — Getting knowledge of order passed against them only when they reached their village — Appeal filed immediately on knowing that they should file appeal — Delay stands sufficiently explained — Dismissal of second appeal on ground of limitation — Improper.Condonation of delay — Application for — Court while deciding application cannot go into merits of case — Averments made in application moreover, sufficient to explain delay — Order refusing to condone delay in filing appeal — Liable to be set aside.

Withdrawal of admission — Permissibility — Suit for eviction —Plea taken by defendant-tenant in written statement that suit premises were—

Dishonour of cheque — Complaint — Giving of notice to drawer — When to be presumed — Notice despatched by sender by post with correct address on it — It can be deemed to be served on sendee unless he proves that it was not really served.

Partition suit — Preliminary decree — Application for drawing up of final decree — Not subject to any period of limitation — Conceptual change in Code suggested.Although no period of limitation has been prescribed for exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the same would not mean that the suo motu power can be exercised at any time. Revisional jurisdiction should ordinarily be exercised within a period of three years having regard to the purport in terms of the Act. In any event, the same should not exceed the period of five yearsApplication seeking condonation of delay should be decided first posting the matter for final hearing of appeal itself — Improper. AIR 2002 SC 204 and AIR 1956 SC 367S. 65 — Secondary evidence — Photocopy of document — Admissibility — Executor merely admitted his signatures on photocopy of power of attorney but denied its content thereof — Court without considering probative value of contents of document, decreed suit for specific performance — Improper.Photostat copy of will — Admissibility — Loss of original copy — Proof — Date on which plaintiff had handed over original will to his counsel not given in petition — Document with endorsement of officer in Nagar Palika, who had compared copy of will filed in Nagar Palika with original will taken by plaintiff, not produced — Witness did not remember as to when original will was shown to officer in Nagar Palika — Plaintiff thereby had not proved loss of original will — Secondary evidence in shape of Photostat copy of original will, would not be admissible in evidence.Secondary evidence — Original Will not produced — Registered copy of Will — Cannot be allowed to be relied upon as secondary evidence.Original Will not produced — Existence of original Will duly admitted and not denied by defendants in written statements — Certified copy of Will is admissible — Can be produced and marked in evidence. AIR 2001 SC 1151, 2007 (4) AIR Kar R 20, DistingExecution of Will — When said to be proved — Original Will was not at all produced before Court — No pleading or evidence of loss of original Will — Even otherwise copy of such Will was not produced — Party even did not seek to prove Will by secondary evidence — Since no amount of oral evidence about execution of any Will would be admissible unless original was produced or copy was produced and loss of original was proved — In such circumstances, Will executed by deceased cannot be said to be proved.Secondary evidence — Photostat copy of Original agreement of sale — Not admissible in evidence when fact of loss of original not established.Certified copy of the Will is not a public doucment within meaning of S. 74 — Not admissible per se in evidence — Consequently certified copy of Will produced on record of case cannot be presumed to be primary document which could be adduced in evidence and same could be proved only by leading secondary evidence after taking permission of Court and proving loss, destruction etc. of document.Public document — Does not include pleadings of party — It comes within purview of private document — Therefore, certified copy of a written statement allegedly filed by plaintiff in an earlier suit, is not per se admissible in evidenceInjunction — Grant of — Besides consideration of basic elements, Court must consider conduct of parties.Interim relief — Grant of — Court while granting interim relief granted main relief itself — This is impermissible. Claim for Khatedari rights — Mere possession of land not sufficient to claim Khatedari rights — It should be coupled with payment of rent and contract express or implied — Payment of rent by plaintiff tenant not established — No Khatedari rights can be claimed.

Filing of frivolous suit — Amounts to abuse of process of Court — Such suit cannot be dismissed under O. 7, R. 11 since grounds mentioned in O. 7, R. 11 are that suit is barred by law or it does not disclose cause of action or proper Court-fees had not been paid — But Court is not helpless and can invoke powers under S. 151 and dismiss suit under S. 151.Application for rejection of plaint — Ground that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute — Rejection — Validity — Dispute relating to securities transaction — Under rules and by-laws framed by Bombay Stock Exchange for any dispute between Broker, Sub-Broker and client, specific provision of arbitration was provided and dispute was required to be sent for arbitration before Arbitration Committee constituted by Bombay Stock Exchange — By-laws of Bombay Stock Exchange not considered while deciding application under O. 7, R. 11 — Improper — Matter remitted for decision afresh.Return of plaint — Suit for permanent injunction — Suit related to agricultural land and was not triable by Civil Court — Then Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to dismiss the suit also — At the most suit could be returned to plaintiff for presentation of same in Competent Court having jurisdiction.o.7, r. 11, S. 92 — Rejection of plaint — Application for, should be made prior to grant of leave of Court or at time when appellants opposed grant of leave — Once leave is granted question of rejecting plaint under O. 7, r. 11 did not arise. (Para 11)Court-fee — Suit for declaration that sale deed executed by plaintiff—™s father is null and void and for joint possession — Is not a suit for cancellation of sale deed — Court-fee need not be paid on sale consideration mentioned in sale deeds — Court-fee payable is computable under Section 7(iv)(c). Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 34.Declaratory decree — Suit for cancellation of sale deed, and general power of attorney as being null and void and for injunction against defendant — Suit cannot be considered as one for mere declaratory relief — Trial Court without referring to Ss. 38 and 26 of Act erroneously accepted Court fee paid by plaintiff by as per S. 24 of Act — Matter remanded to trial Court to determine correct Court fee payable as regards market value of suit property as on date of suit.

Inspite of the Court having proceeded ex parte earlier, the defendant is entitled to appear and participate in the subsequent proceedings as of rightAncestral property — Succession prior to 1994 amendment — Father having seven sons three daughters — His ancestral property prior to his death would be divided in eight equal parts i.e. 1/8th for himself and 1/8th each for the seven sons — Each of the sons will get 1/8th share in the total property — On the demise of father his 1/8th share will go to his widow — It would be only on the demise of his widow the seven sons and three daughters will get equal share in the share held by her — On her death the seven sons and three daughters thus will each get 1/10 share from the 1/8th share of the total property and, therefore, each one of them will have 1/8th share in the total property — Order of Court making 11 parts of total property inherited by father by treating 11 coparcener in all i.e. father, seven son and three daughters not proper as married daughters could not get equal shares with sons prior to (1994) amendment introducing chapter II-A consisting of Ss. 29A to 29CAncestral property — Property inherited by sons in individual capacity — Son’s son/sons have no right therein as coparceners by their birth — Sale deed executed by one of members of family — Plaintiffs as sons are not entitled to declaration that sales are not binding on their shares.Joint family property — Suit to set aside sale — Ground that it was not for legal necessity — Sale in question by plaintiff’s father — Plaintiff’s father inheriting property along with his sister — Land partitioned and recorded in name of each — Loses character of joint family property — S. 6 has not application — Plaintiff’s father and his sisters were tenants in common — Each had right to transfer his share of land — Suit liable to be dismissedLiability of Insurance Company — Deceased, a traveller in private vehicle — Is a third party — Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability.

Insurer cannot escape liability on ground that owner of vehicle had not given intimation of transfer of vehicle.Outraging modesty of a woman — Ingredients of — Re-stated.Setting aside of ex parte decree — It is knowledge of ‘date of hearing’ and not knowledge of pendency of suit which is relevant for second proviso to O. 9, R. 13 — No summon of application under S. 6 of Act of 1957 for specific date was served upon petitioner — Presumption of service of summon upon him cannot be drawn only on basis of pendency of application under S. 6 of Act — Ex parte decree passed liable to be set aside. AIR 2002 SC 2370, Rel. on.

Effect of substituting or adding new plaintiff or defendant - Suit filed against dead person - Application for substituting legal heirs - Error committed due to a mistake made in good faith - Held that its effect is not to begin from the date on which the application for the purpose was made, or from the date of permission but from the date of the suit, deeming it to have been correctly instituted on an earlier date than the date of making the application

At the time of deciding application moved under O. 7, r. 11, CPC, pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant. The whole plaint has to be read and if it discloses no cause of action, then, the plaint as a whole, or part of the plaint can be rejected. In the instant case, the defendant had filed application under O. 7,

estoration of suit — Application for — Limitation as to — Application filed after delay of about 4آ½ years — No limitation prescribed for filing an application u/O. 9, R. 7 — It is open to Court to condone absence of defendant at any stage of proceedings — However only at stage when matter posted for judgment after completing trial proceedings, application filed u/O. 9, R. 7 cannot be maintained.

Liability of insurer — Third party risk — Whether person travelling in goods carrier is covered under —ک

Document not duly stamped — Effect — Unregistered Deed of sale — Adequate stamp duty not paid thereon — Not admissible in evidence in terms of S. 35 — Said document would not also be admissible for collateral purpose — Impounding of said document — Was proper. Registration Act (16 of 1908), S. 49.Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) - O. 7, R. 11(d) — Re-jection of plaint — Ground of limitation — If a suit on face of it is barred by limitation it can be rejected under O. 7, R. 11 of Code — However question whether suit is within limitation is to be considered only on basis of averments in plaint. If a suit is on the face of it barred by limitation it can be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code. In such a case it is not necessary to push the parties to trial merely because limitation is mixed question of fact and law. But it does not follow that the objections of the defendant to the date shown in the plaint as the date of accrual of cause of action can be looked into at that stage. The question whether the suit is within limitation or not would have to be considered by the Court for the purpose of application for rejection of plaint only on the basis of averments in the plaint.Limitation Act (36 of 1963) - Art. 54 — Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 20 — Suit for specific performance of contract — Starting point of limitation — If date is not fixed in contract limitation starts from date of refusal on part of defendant to perform contract — Refusal requires demand by plaintiff and if demand is refused, that gives cause of action — Refusal to re-deliver possession by defendant will not give rise to cause of action — Cause of action was for demand of execution of sale deed — Plaint does not show as to when demand was made by plaintiff for registering sale deed in his favour — Burden is on plaintiff to show that there was embargo to be lifted by Govt. and it had prevented plaintiff from seeking registration of the sale — Waiting for 19 years, does not give right to plaintiff to sue for specific performance, but for penalty of Rs. 30,000/-

A plea of limitation cannot be decided as an abstract principle of law divorced from facts as in every case the starting point of limitation has to be ascertained which is entirely a question of fact. A plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. Counter-claim — Payment of Court-fees — Plaintiff filing appeal challenging decree of Court dismissing their suit for recovery of amount as also decreeing amount of counter-claim — Plaintiffs are required to pay Court-fee on amount of counter-claim — If court-fee is not paid in respect of decree on counter-claim, that part of decree would be final and would operate as res judicata. AIR 1997 Ker 318, Rel. on.the merits of the case can be decided before the delivery of the judgment and if the court comes to the conclusion that the court-fee paid is deficient, it may defer the pronouncement of the judgment and ask the party to pay the deficit court-fee as per valuation of the Court, Thus, the multiplicity of the proceedings delay in the disposal of the suit and calling and recalling the witnesses every time can be avoided and it will serve the cause of justice and the cause of litigants alsoEviction proceedings against tenants — Filing of affidavits by landlord — Act does not limit landlords—™ right to file affidavits after pleadings are complete and in course of inquiry — Landlord can file affidavits even after rejoinder is filed and prior permission of Court would not be necessary.

Eviction of tenant — Ground that landlord required suit shop for running his own business — Earlier landlord used to sit with his son in latter’s shop but subsequently there had been some disputes between them and relations between them became strained resulting thereby his son declined to allow his father to sit in shop in which his son had business of trading in cement — Bona fide need proved — Tenant liable to be evicted.viction of tenant — Ground of default in payment of rent and non-user of house — Tenant shown to be residing in Delhi and not in Jodhpur — Eviction ordered, not improper.Rejection of plaint — Application for — Ground that suit for injunction was barred by law — Suit premises given on lease by general body of society to defendant by way of resolution — Prima facie relationship of landlord and tenant established — Suit filed for injunction was in effect for seeking revocation of said resolution and dispossession — Such a suit could only be filed before Rent Tribunal — Civil Court’s jurisdiction would be barred — Plaint liable to be rejected.Suit for eviction — Bona fide need of landlord — Plaintiff landlord needed suit land for construction of their own residential house — Defendant tenant had constructed his own show room and was using suit land only for keeping his wooden stock — Need of landlord held bona fide — Tenant liable to be evicted.Suit for eviction — Ground of personal bona fide necessity — Death of landlord during pendency of suit — Bona fide need would continue even after his death as it was claimed for himself and his son — Subsequent events in form of sale of said property would not ipso facto upset the decree — Attornment in favour of purchaser would be automatic — Purchaser of property would be entitled for vacant possession. 1987 (Supp) SCC 630 and 1998 DNJ (Raj) 293, Distg.Filing of written statement by tenant — Outer limit of 45 days as prescribed by S. 15 (3) — Is directory and not mandatory — Court in its discretion can extend time for filing of written statement.Suit for eviction — Ground of sub- letting — Suit property let out to original tenant prior to her entering into partnership firm — Subsequently he shifted to London and never returned — Partnership managed by other defendant and was never registered with Registrar of Firms — Partnership was thus drawn up merely to provide a cover and to make believe that original tenant had not parted with possession of suit premises in favour of defendant — Subletting proved — Eviction ordered, not improper.Bona fide need — Petition filed taking grounds of bona fide need and that property in question was taken on rent for residential purpose but, later on, school was opened in said premises and tenant started using said property for commercial purpose — Finding of fact recorded that premises was let out for commercial purpose — On such case Chapters II and III of Act will apply and landlord would be entitled for eviction decree upon ground of bona fide necessity.Eviction — Ground of bona fide need — Suit filed only when tenant did not agree to pay enhanced rent — Petition also suffered from suppression of material facts — Claim for eviction on ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement liable to be rejected.Suit for eviction — Personal bona fide necessity — Landlord having factory for manufacturing furniture and handicrafts required suit shop for opening their showroom of furniture and handicrafts — Plea that no books of accounts were produced before trial Court to show loss caused on account of non-setting up showroom, not tenable — Since sufferance of actual loss of non-setting up of showroom of furniture and handicrafts was not necessary as such loss could not be measured in terms of money nor it was recorded in books of accounts — Suit decreed on ground of personal bona fide need, not improper.Commercial premises — Suit for eviction — Bona fide need — Landlord had retired from Govt. service and he wanted to do his own business in suit premises — Death of landlord during pendency of appeal — Requirement of premises by his legal heirs namely widow will not extinguish on his death — Fact that widow was getting pension and her sons were also in employment, cannot be ground to deny her possession — Even widow has her own independent right of survival and earn her livelihood after death of her husband — Eviction ordered.Suit for eviction — Default in payment of rent — Rent provisionally determined in terms of S. 13(3) of 1950 Act — But no order passed by trial court in suit and defence of tenant was not struck off — Subsequent withdrawal of suit after enforcement of Act of 2001 — No provision akin to provisions of S. 13(3) to 13(5) of the Act of 1950, providing for determination of rent provisionally or striking out defence on account of non payment of amount determined provisionally or monthly rent subsequent thereto, incorporated in Act of 2001 — Question of striking out the defence of the tenant in proceedings for eviction u/S. 9 of the Act of 2001 would not arise — Even if, any such right had accrued to petitioner during pendency of eviction proceedings before trial Court under Act of 1950, the same cannot be enforced in fresh eviction proceedings lodged under provisions of S. 9 of Act of 2001.Amendment in written statement — Permissibility — Crutial date is date of petition — Suit for eviction of tenant from shop — Amendment sought in appeal to incorporate plea that ground of bona fide necessity ceased to exist due to appointment of son of landlord in Bank — Fact of appointment was not in existence at stage of trial — If such application will be allowed at appellate stage then certainly at every stage after adjudication, parties will take plea of amendment and no trial Court will be able to adjudicate matter finally and there will be no end of dispute — Said ground cannot be allowed to take away ground of personal bona fide necessity of landlord — Amendment cannot be allowed. AIR 2005 SC 1274, Rel. on. AIR 2007 SC 2511, AIR 2002 SC 3369, DistingSubstituted service — Directions for, issued without recording satisfaction that defendants cannot be served personally — No efforts made to get defendants served personally in ordinary way — Service of summons cannot be considered to be sufficient and in accordance with law.Setting aside ex parte decree — On basis of material on record, no conclusion could be drawn that defendants had notice about date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear before Court and answer plaintiff— s claim — In interest of justice, defendants deserve to be granted an opportunity to contest suit — Ex parte decree set aside.Possession of contraband — Search and seizure — Competent authority — Sub-Inspector who conducted search and seizure was not posted as Station House Officer at relevant time at concerned Police Station — Thus, search and seizure cannot be said to have been conducted by competent officer — Conviction of accused liable to be set aside.Amendment of decree — Interest portion accidently slipped by office while drafting preliminary decree — Application to amend preliminary decree to incorporate interest portion of judgment of trial Court — It is not amendment to be carried out under O. 6, R. 17 — Mistake can be rectified u/S. 152.Addition of a third party - If consequence of addition of a third party in a suit would involve a de novo trial, Court should normally disallow the application.Appointment of local commissioner — Suit for partition of agricultural land and for permanent injunction — Evidence was yet to be adduced by plaintiff and issues were yet to be framed — Dismissal of application of defendant for appointment of commissioner for local inspection — Not erroneous.Alleged encroachment of suit land of appellant Board — Respondents’ land adjacent to suit land — Application for demarcation by appellant before trial Court, was rejected — Application for appointment of Local Commissioner for demarcation of suit land filed by appellant before Appellate Court was also rejected — High Court did not consider whether Local Commissioner should be appointed for purpose of demarcation — Summarily dismissed second appeal on basis of concurrent findings of fact that Board failed to prove encroachment by respondents — Order of High Court liable to be set aside. R. S. A. No. 3374 of 2003, D/- 16-1-2007 (Punj. and Har.) - Reversed.Local Commissioner — Can be appointed even at appellate stage — Boundary disputes — Encroachment — Earlier demarcation not carried out in accordance with law — Application seeking appointment of local Commissioner to demarcate land in question to ascertain encroachment — Rejected on technical ground, not proper — Appellate Court directed to appoint local Commissioner and accordingly decide issue of encroachment.Local investigation — Advocate commission appointed by Court to inspect property — Duty of Commissioner is not to collect evidence, which is in nature of oral testimony of parties — But to graphically elucidate matter, which is local in character.Commission to make local investigation — Commissioner appointed by Court has got no power to delegate said work to any other person — Fact that delegate is an expert in field — Is no ground to accept his report.Appointment of Commissioner for local inspetion — Report submitted by Commissioner — Found dissatisfactory by Court — Court should direct further enquiry and call for supplementary report from same Commissioner — R. 10 does not authorize Court to set aside Commissioner’s report if it was found to be deficient and did not answer point in controversy.Commissioner cannot be appointed to find out as to who is in possession of property — But he can be appointed to make local investigation to ascertain facts or other materials which are found in property and to make a report in regard to that matter to Court.Appointment of second Commissioner — Permissibility — Application for appointment of second Commissioner on ground that first Commissioner while preparing report relied upon sketch which was suspended by High Court — Held, proper course with petitioner is to request trial Court to direct first Commissioner himself to make a local inspection again or to convince trial Court about unacceptability of first report and seek appointment of second Commissioner Appointment of Commissioner — Discretion of Court — Exercise of — Commissioner appointed before commencement of oral evidence — Not proper.Appointment of Commissioner — Plaintiff seeking injunction against defendants from disturbing plaintiffs running vegetable market — Defendants denied existence of such market — Application filed by plaintiffs for appointment of an advocate-Commissioner — Commissioner can be appointed for purpose of ascertaining state of things that may be asserted and denied by rival parties — Rejection of application by trial Court on ground that plaintiffs could not seek to fish out evidence or establish a state of things — Improper.Injunction against dispossession — Granted in suit for declaration of sale deed as void — Injunction granted continuing for 9 years — Subsequent recall — Held improper — Early disposals of suit directed.Temporary injunction - Suit for specific performance - Plaintiff not in possession - No prima facie case - Plaintiff had not acquired any right to seek relief of injunction against the true owner - Injunction rightly refuseDishonour of cheque — Complaint — Limitation for filing — Payee not filing complaint after service of first notice of demand on drawer — Cannot issue second notice of demand to drawer and file complaint thereafter.Forged document — Mere alteration of document — Does not make it forged document — Alteration must be for some gain or for some objective.

Limitation for filing execution application — Computation — Period during which stay order was operating will be excluded.Adverse possession — Is a question of fact which has to be specifically pleaded and proved — plaintiff neither asserted plea of adverse possession nor any issue was framed by trial Court in this regard — None of the parties lead any evidence on point — Held, appellate Court by erroneously making out an altogether new case which was not pleaded set aside judgment passed by trial Court and decreed suit filed by plaintiff.Effect of non-registration — Agreement of sale written on plain paper and not registered — Would not confer any right, title or interest to transferee — Transferee acquiring possession of suit shop in part performance of agreement — Transferee at the most can avail benefit of S. 53-A of T. P. Act only as shield and not as sword. Transfer of Property Plea of limitation — Defence that suit was barred by time — Set up in Written Statement — No specific issue framed — Trial Court coming to finding that suit was barred by time — First Appellate Court and also High Court not going into said question nor deciding it before reversing judgment of Trial Court — Plea of limitation before Supreme Court under Art. 136Suit could not be dismissed as barred by limitation without proper pleadings, framing of an issue of limitation and taking of evidence. Question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact.Will - Proof of - Grant of Probate - No issue regarding validity of Will - One witness examined - Not supporting claim on due execution and attestation - None signed in his presence. Held that Will was not established. High Court's order upheld.When a co-sharer sells his share in the joint holding he transfers his right as a co-sharer in the said land and the right to remain in its exclusive possession till the joint holding is partitioned amongst all co-sharers.Rights and liabilities of co-sharers - Principles governing. Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.Plea of demanding specific performance is available only to vendor /defendant and is personal to him, and subsequent purchasers have no right - The plea that plaintiff must be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract must be available only to the vendor or his legal representatives but not to subsequent purchasers - SLP dismissed.Limitation begins to run from the date the parties have stipulated for performance of the contract and suit is to be filed within 3 years from date so stipulated - Application for amendment changed the cause of action as the cause of action was to be stated initially in plaint but was not pleaded.Suit for specific performance - Respondent had instituted a suit for perpetual injunction and by an application under O.6, R.17 CPC, the respondent got the suit converted into one for specific performance by order dated 25.8.1989 - Limitation had started from April 6, 1986 - Held that suit filed after 3 years was clearly barred by limitationSpecific performance of contarct for sale - Under the agreement, date fixed by reference to the occurrence of certain event i.e. the redemption of the mortgage - Requirement of Article 113 - Actual day need not be mentioned on the deed, but the basis of the calculation which was to make it certain should be found therein.Suit filed after expiry of 3 years from the date of knowledge of denial is hopelessly barred by limitation under Article 54 - Mere issue of notice in 1972 does not stop running of limitation once it has began to run - High Court justified in dismissing suit.Suit for Specific performance of contract - Limitation -- Appellant entering into an agreement for sale of his land to respondent in October 1982 - Respondent upon paying certain amount as earnest money put in physical possession of the land -Sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered upon disposal of an appeal pending in High Court - As per the sale agreement respondent was to repay an amount of Rs. 42,000 to a bank being the loan taken by the appellant from the bank - Bank having filed a suit for recovery appellant issuing notice to respondent on 24-4-1984 directing him to pay the loan amount to the bank and get the sale deed executed within 15 days failing which the agreement shall stand cancelled - Respondent depositing an amount of only Rs. 10,000 in the bank on 25-5-1985 - On 26-9-1989 respondent filing a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale - Trial court decreeing the suit - Lower appellate court however holding the suit to be barred by limitation - On further appeal High Court holding that since time was not the essence of the contract the suit was not barred and accordingly remitting the matter to the lower appellate court - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that since the suit was not filed within three years from the date of expiry of the period of fifteen days specified in the notice dated 24-4-1984 it was barred by limitation.Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale - Suit filed almost 29 years after the sale agreement - Defendant disputing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court and also taking the stand that the suit was barred by limitation - Trial court holding that it had jurisdiction to try the suit and dismissing the suit as being barred by limitation - Lower appellate court as well as High Court affirming the decision and dismissing the appeal - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that the trial court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. Applicability of Section 46 of the Contract Act and several other pleas available to the defendants which were required to be considered, cannot enable the dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation. Matter accordingly remitted to trial court for fresh consideration of all the issues.Agreement for sale of property - Form of contract and execution of deeds - Performance of contract - Limitation for raising the plea of specific performance - Private limited company (company) owning certain property entering into an agreement with first respondent for sale - Agreement for sale dated 18.4.1971 -Company receiving advance amount for sale - In May 1971 company filing a suit against some persons claiming ownership over the property and obtaining a consent decree on 3.5.1978 - Thereafter first respondent writing letters on 12-11-1979, 11.1.1980, 5.1.1981 and 8.10.1984 asking the company to execute and register the sale deed - Company also assuring the first respondent that it would do the needful - However on 21.8.1985 company refusing to execute and register the deed on the plea that the same became barred by limitation - First respondent filing suit for specific performance in 1985 - During pendency of the suit company selling the property to appellant - Appellant contesting the suit and disputing its maintainability - Trial court decreeing the suit - Appeals there against dismissed by the lower appellate court as well as High Court. Dismissing further appeal held that since the period of limitation got extended by conduct of the parties the suit was not barred. Execution of the agreement by the company in favour of the first respondent had not been denied at any stage. Even in the absence of any resolution on the part of the company or official seal of the company in the agreement the contract could not be held to be invalid or illegal. Decretal of the suit for specific performance consequently upheld.Agreement to sell - Whether time is es sence of contract? - Held that there is a presumption against time being essence of the contract - To make time the essence of the contract, intention must be expressed in unequivocal language.Return of plaint — For want of notice — Permission under S. 80(2) for exemption from service of advance notice to defendants granted by Court — Case cannot be reopened for compliance of S. 80(1) of Code — Order returning plaint for compliance of S. 80(1) liable to be set aside.Suit for declaring compromise decree as forged — Not maintainable being barred by O. 23, R. 3A — In such case Court should exercise jurisdiction under O. 7, R. 11(d) and reject plaint as a whole.Rejection of plaint — Suit for redemption of mortgage — No categorical statement in plaint that there was any transaction of mortgage between parties — No cause of action had been set out in plaint — Plaint liable to be rejected.Rejection of plaint — Relevant consideration — Averments in plaint are relevant for deciding application for rejection of plaint and for that purpose plaint has to be read as a whole — Averments in written statement are wholly irrelevant for deciding application for rejection of plaint.Rejection of plaint — On ground that second suit was filed without obtaining leave under O. 2, R. 2 — Second suit was filed for specific performance of agreement — First suit was filed for injunction — Cause of action was substantively same in both suits as both suits were based on agreement executed between plaintiff and defendants — Plaintiff omitted prayer for specific performance in first suit — Second suit was required to be filed after obtaining leave under O. 2, R. 2 — Suit was filed without obtaining leave under O. 2, R. 2 — Rejection of plaint proper.Rejection of plaint — Application for — At time of deciding application under O. 7, R. 11(d) only statement of plaint is required to be seen — No assertion in plaint that suit was barred by any law — Petitioner was raising voice with regard to maintainability of suit — Refusal to reject plaint, not improper.Rejection of plaint — Suit for specific performance of contract — Case of defendants that Memorandum of Understanding entered into between parties is void and illegal — Civil court is entitled to take cognizance of every dispute of civil nature unless law prohibits it either expressly or impliedly from entertaining the dispute — Party seeking rejection of plaint under O. 7, R. 11 must show provision of law prohibiting civil court from entertaining the dispute or that an alternate forum or remedy is provided — Failure to show any such provision of law — Rejection of plaint not proper.

Eviction decree on basis of Compromise — Enforcement — Eviction sought on ground of reasonable and bona fide need — Compromise between parties whereunder tenant agreed to vacate premises within stipulated date — Inference can be drawn that tenant admitted existence of grounds of eviction — Tenant not handing over possession after stipulated date — Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), O. 14, R. 2 — Proceedings under Act — Framing of issues — Provisions of CPC does not apply — But rent control tribunal is not precluded from applying principles underlying provisions of CPC for finding out truth — If there is difference between the parties on material question of law and facts, then, in civil proceedings for just decision of matter, it is always advisable to frame issues/points of determination.

S. 138 Dishonour of cheque — Registration of complaint under S. 138 — Duty of trial Court — Court should carry out proper verification before issuing summons in a criminal case under S. 138 — Following verification required while registering complaint under S. 138 stated.Dishonour of cheque — Offences by companies — Petitioner, Additional Director of accused-company resigned before cheque in question was dishonoured — No specific averments in complaint as to how and in what manner petitioner was responsible for conduct of the business of company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning — Complaint against petitioner quashed.Court-fee — Suit for declaration that sale deed executed by plaintiff—™s father is null and void and for joint possession — Is not a suit for cancellation of sale deed — Court-fee need not be paid on sale consideration mentioned in sale deeds — Court-fee payable is computable under Section 7(iv)(c). Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 34.Amendment of plaint — Delay — Not by itself sufficient ground to reject amendment — Court has to see whether by allowing belated amendment, real controversy between parties may be resolved — Whether opposite party can be compensated by cost or otherwise.Registered document — Has lot of sanctity attached to it — Sanctity cannot be allowed to be lost without following proper procedure — Registered power of attorney — Mere filing of criminal complaint against power of attorney-holder — Not sufficient to revoke power of attorney.Suit for declaration of sale deed as void ab initio — No relief claimed that sale deed in question be cancelled or avoided — Plaintiff not bound to pay ad valorem court-fees — Payment of fixed declaratory court-fees would be sufficient. 1975 Pat LJR 349 and 2006 (4) Pat LJR 443, Rel. on. Unregistered Sale Deed — Admissible in evidence as evidence of contract in suit for specific performance of contract — Also admissible as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. Specific Relief Act

Registration of sale agreement — Whether mandatory for seeking injunction — Applicant sought injunction on ground that he had purchased suit property and paid part consideration — Unregistered sale deed showing delivery of possession to applicant on payment of 85% sale consideration — Reliability — Had the applicant sought benefit of part performance under S. 53-A of T. P. Act registration of sale deed would have been mandatory — Since no such benefit is claimed, unregistered sale deed can be relied upon by Court in an injunction application.Instrument not duly stamped — Admissibility — Old unregistered sale deed not accepted by trial Court as evidence for want of registration and payment of stamp duty and penalty — Decision of trial Court upheld being as per S. 35 of Stamp Act.Documentary evidence — Admissibility — Objection relating to deficiency of stamp duty — Must be taken when document is tendered in evidence — Such objection must be judicially determined before document is marked as exhibit.Registration of sale deed — Validity — Suit for specific performance on basis of unregistered sale deed was pending before Civil Court — Jurisdiction of Civil Court is plenary in nature and, therefore, all questions in respect of execution of documents and receipt of sale consideration or execution of agreement are issues, which are required to be examined in civil suit — Invocation of jurisdiction of Registrar under S. 73 of Act would be abuse of process of law — Therefore, order passed by Registrar directing registration of sale deed during pendency of matter before Civil Court would be improper.Suit for specific performance — Plea of possession in part performance of oral agreement to sale cannot be raised by vendee.Suit for declaration and partition - Petitioner along with his brother inherited suit property from his deceased father - Mutation of land was recorded in favour of his brother only - Evidence on record so also in Panchayat election list name of petitioner was shown as son of his father - Mutation attested in favour of his brother cannot deprive petitioner of his right - Finding that petitioner was son of his father and thus entitled to one half share from land in dispute - Is proper.Agreement to sell — Specific performance — Mere fact that there is stipulation in agreement that in event of default of defendant, plaintiff would be entitled to refund of amount — By itself would not disentitle plaintiff to decree for specific performance. AIR 2000 SC 2408, AIR 2000 SC 191, AIR 1999 SC 2309 and AIR 1994 Raj 259, Rel. on. Suit for recovery of possession by person wrongfully dispossessed — Limitation — Is to be computed from date of actual dispossession and not from date of knowledge of dispossession — Finding recorded by trial Court by considering date of knowledge as date of dispossession and decree of restoration passed — Improper and liable to be set aside.Suit for recovery of possession by person wrongfully dispossessed — Relationship of tenancy among landlord and tenant not disputed between parties — Court-fees deposited in terms of S. 41(1)(d) — Proper.Agreement of sale — Payment of entire consideration and possession also delivered — Execution of sale deed but failure to get it registered — Suit for specific performance on basis of executed agreement — Maintainable. Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), Ss. 53A and 55(1)(d). Registration Act (16 of 1908), S. 59.Readiness and willingness — Purchaser discharging all obligation under agreement — Failure only on part of vendor to get sale deed registered — Lack of proper pleadings regarding readiness and willingness, held on facts should not be a ground for denial of relief of specific performanceAgreement to sell — Suit for specific performance — Readiness and willingness — Plaintiff vendee not pleading that he was ready and willing to pay balance amount or that he made any effort to pay the same — Not entitled to relief of specific performance. (B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 16 (c) — Agreement to sell — Suit for specific performance — Subsequent purchaser of property who were defendant in suit — Entitled to raise plea that plaintiff (prior purchaser) was never ready and willing to perform his part of contract. AIR 2000 SC 860, Rel. on.Under-valued instruments — Reference under S. 47-A to Collector — When can be made — Document when presented should be registered first by Sub-Registrar and then reference can be made to Collector if he deems fit and proper.Chargeability of instrument with duty — Determination by Collector — Is revisable — Issuance of certificate by endorsement by Collector under S. 32(3) — Does not take away right of revision in terms of S. 56(4) — Only revisional order would be final and not the order of original authority — S. 53A (as amended by Bombay Stamp Act) would be of no assistance.Impounding of insufficiently stamped document — Insufficiently stamped document if admitted in evidence, S. 36 gets attracted and Court is prohibited from re-opening matter — The question of judicial determination of matter arises when objection is taken when document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case. Execution of document — Use of Stamp Paper — No expiry date — S. 54 does not require purchaser of Stamp Paper should use it within six months.Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act (7 of 1952), S. 47A(1) (as inserted by Raj. Act 10 of 1982) — Stamp duty — Assessment — Relevant date for determining market value — Stamp duty on sale deed — Current market value at time of execution has to be seen — Fact that purchaser had to litigate for getting sale deed executed — Immaterial. Original Instrument bearing stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description — Copy of such instrument — Neither can be validated by impounding nor can be admitted as secondary evidence — S. 37 applies to document and not copy of document.Impounding of document — Letter containing terms and conditions of agreement to sell immovable property — Nothing to show that rights and interest in property were actually created by oral agreement and letter only incorporated its terms — Letter in question is instrument u/S. 2(14) — Liable to be impounded for non-payment of stamp duty. Presumption as to document 30 years old — Sale deed — Date of execution of document was mentioned as Paushsudi Ekam Samvat 1890 — Document revealed name of seller and purchaser and consideration was also mentioned in it — Names of witnesses were also mentioned and also as to by whom it was written — Possession and ownership of grandfather of defendant on basis of said document can be said to have been proved. 1957 Raj LW 267, Rel. on.Suit for specific performance — Necessary parties — Are one who are parties to contract, their legal representative or person who had purchased contracted property from vendor with or without notice — Any person claiming independent right in property in question, including co-owner or coparcener is not a necessary party to suit for specific performance. 1995 AIR SCW 1782 and AIR 2005 SC 2813, Rel. on.Suit for specific performance — Necessary parties — Are one who are parties to contract, their legal representative or person who had purchased contracted property from vendor with or without notice — Any person claiming independent right in property in question, including co-owner or coparcener is not a necessary party to suit for specific performance. 1995 AIR SCW 1782 and AIR 2005 SC 2813, Rel. on.Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Alternative relief of refund of earnest money — Grant of — Suit property purchased by bona fide purchaser during pendency of suit having no knowledge of prior agreement — Lapse of 19 years — Held, after lapse of so many years property which was sold to bona fide purchaser cannot be ordered to be re-sold to plaintiff prior purchaser — Relief of return of earnest money granted.Relief of specific performance of contract — Entitlement to — Suit filed by prior purchaser — Subsequent purchaser did not have knowledge of agreement between prior purchaser and vendor — Property was already in possession of subsequent purchaser — Hence, prior purchaser would not be entitled to specific performance of contract, in spite of his willingness to perform his part of contract.Suit for specific performance — Impleadment of third party — Third party had semblance of title and interest over property in question by virtue of agreement — Third party can be impleaded in suit as one of the defendants. AIR 2007 SC 3166, Rel. on.Specific performance — Suit for — Agreement for sale between plaintiff and defendants owners — Defendants subsequently sold suit property in favour of appellants — Impleadment of appellants who are subsequent purchasers — Restriction however placed on appellants that they cannot raise plea of readiness and willingness — Proper — Only issue that can be adjudicated in suit is whether appellants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice 2000 AIR SCW 442, Disting.Sale deed — Cancellation — Deed executed when transferor was suffering from alcoholic Psychosis — Fact of his mental illness proved by medical certificate — Deed in question also showing that valuable land was sold at very paltry amount — Sale being by person who was not of sound mind — Liable to be set aside — Unsoundness of mind of transferor — Is finding of fact — No interference permissible in second appeal. 2001 (3) Ker LT 580, Reversed.Temporary injunction — Refusal — Validity — Suit for cancellation of sale deeds — Purchaser under sale deed in question was close relative and adopted son of seller, his right to sell his property was not in dispute — Purchaser had sufficient funds to purchase said agricultural land in question and adoption prima facie appeared to be genuine — Plaintiffs did not have a prima facie case in their favour for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendants from further alienating property or to direct status quo of suit property to be maintained — Validity of sale deed in question will be determined on basis of further evidence — Refusal to grant temporary injunction, proper.Bar to subsequent suit — When not applicable — Withdrawal of earlier suit cannot bar subsequent suit merely because there was some overlapping of cause of action in subsequent suit compared with earlier suit.Suit for permanent injunction — Directing defendants to demolish construction made on encroached land and handover vacant possession — Suit allowed on basis of entries in Revenue records — Decree for permanent injunction in mandatory form passed without deciding title of plaintiff — Is improper. Rajasthan Tenancy Act (3 of 1955), S. 15 — Cancellation of mutation entry — Delay in making reference to Board of Revenue — Effect — If a person has acquired tenancy/khatedari rights and continued to remain in possession of land for number of years — His rights cannot be cancelled after unreasonable delay in a reference proceedings. 2005 AIHC 3906 (Raj), Rel. on.Specific performance — Suit for — Agreement to sell — Defence that time was essence of contract and plaintiff failed to pay within time — Agreement though specified time for execution of sale deed — Stipulation for forfeiture of earnest money in event of failure to execute sale deed also made — Indicates that time was never intended by parties to be of essence — Defendant could not substantiate plea that time was essence of contract and that it was plaintiffs who avoided to perform their part — Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to decree. 1997 AIR SCW 956, Disting. (2004) 8 SCC 689, 1993 AIR SCW 1371, Relied on.

Khatedari rights — Claim for — Possession of plaintiff tenants on land in dispute on date of commencement of Tenancy Act not proved by any cogent evidence — Mere payment of land revenue would not itself prove khatedari rights of plaintiffs over concerned land. Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs ActRajasthan Land Revenue Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Construction of Cinemas, Hotels and Establishment of Petrol Pumps Rules (1978), R. 7 — Application for allotment of land — Scrutiny and enquiry of applications — R. 7(1) gives discretion to Collector to send application for advice of Chief town Planner — Word ‘enquiry’ denotes that in scrutinising application, Collector would collect all information about land in question and invite objections from inhabitants residing in village where land was situated —Order of Collector on its face showing that there has not been judicial exercise of discretion and objections from inhabitants were not invited — Collector has not assigned any reason as to why application was not sent to Chief Town Planner for his advice — Order of allotment set aside.Allotment of agricultural land to landless person - Subsequent cancellation - Ground that petitioner was not a landless person at time of allotment as he held a notional share in ancestral agricultural land of his father - Finding recorded by Additional Collector that petitioner was not a landless person was based on misconstruction and misapplication of relevant law on subject - He based his findings on circular of revenue department but completely ignored schedule appended to Rules of 1955 which was then available on statute book - Order cancelling allotment - Constituted error apparent on face of record -Liable to be set asideRajasthan Tenancy Act (3 of 1955), S. 15 — Khatedari rights — Claim for — Petitioner has not proved that he was in possession over disputed land prior to Samvat 2012, period corresponding to commencement of Rajasthan Tenancy Act — Plaintiff could not be recorded as Khatedar in absence of either any allotment letter in his favour or an order of regularisation based on prolonged possession by competent officer — Plaintiff cannot be allowed to take advantage of wrong entries made in his favour — Mutation in name of plaintiff liable to be cancelled. 1987 RRD 2002, Disting.Reference to Collector — Validity — Land in dispute held to be Abadi land in earlier proceedings — Said decision having attained finality would be binding — State being party to said decision it would not open for State to question nature of land or vesting of title in original title holder — Reference proceedings initiated u/S. 82 questioning nature of land, improper.Allotment of land — To be made in consultation with Advisory committee — Specific quorum of Advisory Committee provided in Rules of 1970 — Then contrary to said rule no quorum can be permitted by administrative order — S. 13(3A) specifically provided that quorum for constituting meeting of Advisory Committee shall be of three members of whom one should be from Member of Legislative Assembly, Pradhan or the Sarpanch — However none of them were members of Advisory Committee and therefore allotment so made would be illegal.Termination of rights and resumption of land — Power as to — Exercised on ground that land was used for non-agricultural purposes and that it was sought to be transferred by holder for non-agricultural purposes — Not improper but within scope of S. 90-B.Mutation — Land in question was entered in name of Deity — Deity is a perpetual minor and rights of deity are to be protected by Courts — Sale of land belonging to deity is void ab initio and no power is vested in purchaser.Finding of fact — Correction of revenue entries — Question as regards to total area of land of a particular khasra number is pure question of fact — Concurrent finding of fact by Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Revenue Board — Cannot be interfered with under writ jurisdiction.Revision — Delay in filing — Revision Petition Challenging order of cancellation of allotment after delay of 13 years whereas only 60 days is provided under the Rules of 1975 to challenge the said order — Revision held barred by laches.aipur Development Authority (Jaipur Region), Building Bye-laws (2000) Bye-law 19.8 — Floor area ratio — Fixation, of — Auction of property — Sale deed stipulating that floor area ratio was 1.0 in terms of bye-laws then existing — Sale deed further providing that buyer gets additional floor area ratio consequent upon any changes in bye-laws — New Bye-laws of 2000 increasing floor area ratio but specifically providing that increase in floor ratio would not apply to plots sold in auction — Effect of such bye-law cannot be ignored — Plea of estoppel cannot be invoked in such case. Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 115. D. B. Civil Spl. Appeal No. 10 of 2005, D/- 2-3-2006 (Raj), Reversed.Modification in Master plan — Notification permitting land use from ecological to residential — Validity — Decision taken in interest of city of Jaipur, growing pressure on land for housing and considering fact that all land was private Khatedari land and was in close vicinity of Jaipur City — Therefore, in order to prevent unplanned housing, JDA allowed housing development on that land — It cannot be said that change of land use was contrary to Secs. 25(1) and 25 (2a) of JDA Act.Closure of public road for development activity — It is necessary to obtain permission of Jaipur Traffic Control Board before digging and closing road — Armed with building permission respondent builder could not have taken upon itself power and authority to close public road — It amount to usurpation of authority by private person — Action of digging/closing of public road without necessary permission held illegal.Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban) Rules (1974), R. 15 — Allotment of land to Indian Oil Corporation for setting up retail outlets — Arbitrariness — Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) is public-sector Undertaking fully owned by Government of India — It is discharging functions of distribution and supply of petrol and other petroleum products thereby serving public demands as per policy laid down by Government which is in furtherance of interest and welfare of public — I.O.C. not required to have permission or licence to set up retail outlets — I.O.C. had allotted ‘A’ sites for setting up retail outlets to physically handicapped candidates and one such site was being run by itself — Action of J.D.A. in deciding to allot these sites to I.O.C. not arbitrary or unreasonable.Power of revocation and modification of permission to development — Competent authority — Permission to development granted by one Commissioner — Cannot be revoked or modified by another Commissioner — Only “Authority” as specified in S.30 could exercise such power — Power given to ‘Authority’ u/S. 30 could not be exercised by Commissioner.Auction of plot — Auction held in violation of interim order directing to maintain status quo by High Court — Subsequent dismissal of writ petition — JDA would be bound by terms and conditions of auction — It can only be cancelled by a declaration made by Civil Court — JDA cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong and allowed to make party suffer which had complied with all terms and conditions of auction and had further invested huge amount — Reallowing JDA to reauction land would put premium on wrong cancellation of registry by JDA.Cancellation of sale deed — Party to registry of sale/lease deed has no right to cancel same and normal course open is to file civil suit for cancellation — In case sale is effected in violation of some statutory mandatory provision of law, consequence given in statute will be taken into consideration — Even then show cause notice is necessary as sale stands complete as soon as the auction is knocked down in favour of party.Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules (1974), Rr. 15, 15-B — Settlement of land — By negotiation through single window clearance system without any advertisement of same for auction — Not improper — Provisions of law pertaining to the JDA Act and Rules of 1974 were fully observed — Decision was taken on basis of recommendation of Board of Infrastructure Development and Investment Promotion (BIDI) which was highest policy-making body of State — No interference.Effect of non-registration - Agreement of sale written on plain paper and not registered - Would not confer any right, title or interest to transferee - Transferee acquiring possession of suit shop in part performance of agreement - Transferee at the most can avail benefit of S. 53-A of T. P. Act only as shield and not as sword. Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), S. 53-A.Cancellation of registered Sale Deed — Inherent power of registering authority — Fraudulent transfer of property — Sale takes place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee — Is void — True owner can nullify sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court — Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered — Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Ss. 31, 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. General Clauses ActUnregistered sale deed — Is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration — However petitioner is not debarred from proving said document on record and use same for collateral transaction.

Effect of non-registration — Affidavit (relinquishment document) only conveying intention of members of family to relinquish their rights in favour of their mother — It was not document which by itself extinguished or created any rights — Non-registration of document would be of no consequence.Withholding of Registration of document — Not permissible on instructions of Collector-cum-Addl. Secretary (Revenue) — Reason being, powers of Registering authority is circumscribed by Act to factum of execution and identity of person executing document — Collector has no appellate or revisional powers over Registering Authority under Act — Executive instructions cannot override express provisions of statute.Refusal to register documents — Power of Sub-Registrar — Pendency of dispute of title /absence of title with vendor — Cannot be treated as valid ground/reason for refusal to register sale deed.Sale deed — Endorsement by Sub-Registrar about registration — Presumption as to execution of deed and payment of sale consideration — Rebuttal — Executant lady was illiterate woman who could not read or write — She was issueless widow who observed parda all along while appearing before public authorities etc. — She treated defendant as her son and reposed full confidence in him — Evidence showing lump sum papers were put up before lady for obtaining her signatures and thumb impressions by defendant while she was sitting in rickshaw covered from all sides — Immediately thereafter she went back on pre-arranged taxi for her abode — All these circumstances speak against defendant and presumption in question was held to be rebutted by strong evidence.Registration of document — Proof of due execution of document — Execution of document is not mere signing it — But, signing by way of assent to terms of contract embodied in document — Mere proof or admission that person’s signature appears on document cannot by itself amount to execution of document — Registration does not dispense with necessity of proof of execution when the same is denied.

Document would be a conveyance when it is executed as sale and intention of party is to transfer right, title and interest in property — Sellers did not append their signature on disputed sale deed — Document remained incomplete — Will not be covered by definition of —

Registration of document — Proceedings before Registrar are of quasi judicial nature — Signature on document alleged to have been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence and mistake by executant — Registering Authority has no jurisdiction to go into these questions — Aforesaid questions have to be gone into by competent Civil Court — Person who is aggrieved by finding of Registrar can challenge sale deed under S. 31 of Specific Relief Act, in competent civil Court — Civil Court shall go into issue regarding due execution independently, on basis of evidence adduced before it , without in any way being influenced by finding of Registrar.Suit for registration of sale deed — Suit in substance was for direction to defendant vendor to execute and register sale deed, since vendor had already received the entire sale consideration — Such suit would be maintainable under S. 77 of Act.Unregistered contract of sale — Suit for mandatory injunction seeking direction for registration of document — Not main-tainable — Moving application u/S. 73 of Registration Act is condition precedent for institution of such suit.Unregistered agreement of sale – Is inadmissible in evidence — Cannot be taken into consideration for passing a decree for its specific performance in favour of the plaintiff.Document not duly stamped — Document cannot be admitted for any purpose — Not even for a collateral purpose — Difference between S. 49, Registration Act and S. 34, KS Act, stated.Document not duly stamped — Admitted in evidence without any objection being raised — Court is not obliged to act upon or enforce it for all purposes thereafter, without requirement of payment of duty and penalty — Court cannot direct execution of a sale deed in specific, performance of an agreement of sale, when agreement is not duly stamped.Admission of document in evidence — Suit for permanent injunction based on allegations of infringement of trade mark — Photo copies of registration certificates of trade mark produced by plaintiff before Court — Endorsement of photo copies by Court and marking them as exhibits subject to objection as to its proof and admissibility — Is erroneous, being contrary to procedure prescribed by O. 13, R. 4. Trade and Merchandise Marks Act (43 of 1958), S. 36.Temporary injunction — Entitlement to — Plaintiff was owner of property by virtue of registered sale deed executed in his favour — Revenue records showed possession of plaintiff and attempts made by defendant to get revenue entries changed failed — Defendant claimed agreement to sell in his favour — Agreement not registered — Thus possession claimed on basis of part performance of agreement to sell, could not be read in evidence for want of registration — Plaintiff held entitled to grant of temporary injunction restraining defendant from interfering with his possession.Oral agreements — Evidence relating to — Admissibility — Agreement to sale — Terms of agreement having been written and registered under Registration Act — Subsequent oral agreements in this respect would be barred under S. 92 of Evidence Act — No evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted.Registered document — Has lot of sanctity attached to it — Sanctity cannot be allowed to be lost without following proper procedure — Registered power of attorney — Mere filing of criminal complaint against power of attorney-holder — Not sufficient to revoke power of attorney.Estoppel — Revenue proceedings for mutation — Sister—™s statement before revenue authorities relinquishing her rights in favour of her brother — Mutation entry recording name of brother as exclusive owner, held binding on sister — She is estopped from contending contrary to her statement — Plea that there was no waiver, the relinquishment being not in writing and not registered — Not tenable — Sister cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own wrongs — Even if such statement is treated as family arrangement such statement is still binding as family arrangement may be oral and in each case registration is not necessary. AIR 1976 SC 807, Rel. on. Registration Act (16 of 1908), S. 17. Hindu LawDocument not compulsorily registrable — Agreement to sell — No stipulation in agreement indicating that possession of land was handed over to plaintiff vendee — S. 53A of T.P. Act would not apply to such situation — Document not required to be compulsorily registered. Rejection of plaint — R. 11(d) of O. 7 has limited application — Conclusion that suit is barred under any Law must be drawn from averments made in plaint.Rejection of plaint — For invoking R. 11(d) of O. 7, no amount of evidence can be looked into — At that stage issues on merit of matter would not be within realm of Court.Rejection of plaint — Defect of misjoinder of parties and causes of action — Not a ground for rejection of plaint. 2005 (4) Cal HN 664, Reversed.Impleadment of party — Transferee pending suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Transfer made by transferees from defendant without leave of Court — Cannot claim impleadment in view of doctrine of lis pendens — Order impleading them on ground that there was nobody to represent and safeguard their interest — Liable to be set aside.Rejection of plaint — Suit for partition — Plaintiffs claiming to be sons of defendant through his first wife demanded share in suit properties — Plea by defendant that plaintiffs are not his children and even if they are illegitimate children, they have no right over suit properties — Not a sufficient ground to reject plaint — Averments in plaint disclosed cause of action — No material to invoke O. 7, R. 11 — Application for rejection of plaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. AIR 1997 Kant 77, Approved. 2005 (2) Mad LW 487, Foll.Rejection of Plaint — Ground that plaintiff has got no legal and constitutional right of preemption claimed in plaint — Same cannot be considered while dealing with plaint under O. 7, R. 11 — Court has only to see whe-ther plaint discloses cause of action — Rejection of plaint — Not proper.Application for rejection of plaint — Filing of written statement is not necessary for deciding application u/O. 7, R. 11 for rejection of plaint. AIR 2003 SC 759, Rel. on.Rejection of plaint – Application for – At stage of O. 7, R. 11 defence case is not to be considered – If defendant raises any contentious issue or dispute regarding maintainability of suit – Opportunity should be given to parties to lead defence after framing of issues – Summary rejection of plaint, improper.Rejection of plaint - Agreement between appellant and respondent association - Appellant agreed to build and develop property, owned by ~4~ Appellant was to call upon the respondent by notice, to register a lease deed in respect of property, except the ground and first floor - Respondent accordingly called upon but no lease executed - Building completed in 1984 - Letter written on 4.11.84 - Suit for various reliefs filed in July 1990 - Phrase, 'barred by law' - If does not include operation of Limitation Act, 1963 - Receiver found that respondent had executed lease deeds on 3.4.88, 16.7.88 and 19.4.99 - Various claims made. Held that statement in plaint does not show if it is barred by law.Rejection of plaint — Absence of cause of action — Conclusion as to — To be drawn from totality of averments made in plaint.When limitation is the pure question of law and from the pleadings itself it becomes apparent that a suit is barred by limitation, then, of course, is the duty of the court to decide limitation at the outset even in the absence of a plea. However, in cases where the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the suit does not appear to be barred by limitation on the face of it, then the facts necessary to prove limitation must be pleaded, an issue raised and then proved.An application for rejection of the plaint can be filed if the allegations made in the plaint even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety appear to be barred by any law. The question as to whether a suit is barred by limitation or not would, therefore, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. For the said purpose, only the averments made in the plaint are relevant. At this stage, the court would not be entitled to consider the case of the defence.Specific performance of - Respondent entered into agreement both on behalf of himself and his sister in respect of property jointly held by them in half share - Sister refused to accept the agreement - Held that the agreement can be enforced against the respondent in respect of his share of the property - Section 12 not attracted as the case not related to part of the contract but whole of the contract so far as the respondent was concerned.Agreement to sell house property - Agreement by vendor (husband) - Representation that he was absolute owner on partition among brothers and had no male child and that none else has any right over property - Vendee not having any knowledge that vendor's wife was owner to the extent of half share, which devolved upon her due to death of her son - If agreement can be enforced against vendor to the extent of half share. Held that the agreement does not fall under sub-section (2), (3) or (4) of Section 12 of Specific Relief Act, but it can be enforced in part i.e. to the extent of half share.Doctrine of lis pendens — Applicability — Suit seeking declaration of Khatedari rights — Suit property transferred to third party during pendency of suit despite fact that alienation was prohibited — Such transfer would be hit by doctrine of lis pendens — Subsequent transferees cannot be impleaded in suit.

Substituted service — Directions for, issued without recording satisfaction that defendants cannot be served personally — No efforts made to get defendants served personally in ordinary way — Service of summons cannot be considered to be sufficient and in accordance with law.Presumption of service – Summons sent by registered post on correct address with acknowledgment due – Addressee avoided services and did not accept summons even after having knowledge and information from postman – Addressee would be deemed to have been served and presumption of service in law can be made.Presumption of service of summons — When not available — Despite orders of Court to effect substituted service, summons were not served by affixture — Instead copy of summons was served on brother of defendant — Such service would not only be irregular but illegal, void and contrary to directions of Court — There would be no presumption of service — Ex parte decree liable to be set aside.Notice sent by registered post — Presumption of service — Notice sent at correct address of place where petitioner was working viz. State Bank of India — Endorsement of refusal by Postman in respect of said notice not rebutted by petitioner — Presumption of due service can be raised. Evidence Act Unstamped document — Decree/judgment can be passed on basis of unstamped document after recovering duty chargeable along with penalty. AIR 1986 HP 75, Rel. on.Admissibility of unstamped document — Objection not raised earlier when document was admitted in evidence — Admissibility cannot be questioned at subsequent stage — Provisions of S. 61 cannot be invoked before trial Court by raising an objection after document is admitted in evidence but S. 61 of Act is applicable at appellate stage.Unstamped document — Admissibility in evidence — Suit for recovery of mortgage money — Document sought to be produced to prove transaction should be compulsorily stamped — Even if document is used for collateral purpose or otherwise — It does not escape stamp duty u/S. 34 of Act. Secondary evidence — Copy of document insufficiently stamped — Cannot be permitted to be led in suit even though objection of its admissibility was not taken under Evidence Act — Party can only be allowed to rely on document which is an instrument for purpose of S. 35 of Stamp Act and S. 36 does not apply to secondary evidence adduced in Court, contents of document unstamped or insufficiently stamped.Stamp Act (2 of 1899), S. 35 — Family arrangement — Koor Chit which was unstamped and unregistered document of partition — Cannot be looked into even for collateral purpose of adverse possession.Presumption as to document thirty years old - Presumption can be raised at any stage including appellate stage - However belated claim of presumption would not by itself confer any right on other party to claim opportunity to lead evidence in rubuttal.Non-Registration of sale deed – Effect – Fully proved that land in question was sold to respondents for Rs. 1025 and possession was handed over to them - Only on basis that document is not registered, cannot be said that land is not sold to respondents & respondents are only trespassers.Certified copy of sale deed — Refusal to admit — Validity — Original sale deed was lying in another suit pending in same Court — Sale deed being not a public document, only remedy available with plaintiff was to summon file of civil original suit in which original sale deed was filed.Objection as to admissibility of document — Required to be decided forthwith and immediately — Postponing decision on such objection would be contrary to object with which CPC was amended in year 2002, namely, to expedite trial — Consequently postponing decision on objection as to admissibility of evidence until final arguments on suit held erroneous.Document not compulsorily registrable — Agreement to sell — No stipulation in agreement indicating that possession of land was handed over to plaintiff vendee — S. 53A of T.P. Act would not apply to such situation — Document not required to be compulsorily registered.Insufficient stamp duty — Suit for permanent injunction — Deed of declaration marked on plaintiff’s side — Said deed is unilateral document relating to certain rights — Does not require stamp duty — Document marked without paying adequate stamp duty — Not improper. AIR 2001 SC 1158, (2001) 1 MLJ 1, Relied on.Regarding admitting document in evidence — Is at stage of hearing of suit itself and not at stage of hearing of application for temporary injunction.Temporary injunction — Grant of — For purpose of forming opinion upon prima facie case, Court is required to apply its mind to pleadings of plaint as well as reply, if filed in suit or to application filed under O. 39, Rules 1 and 2 — Court is not required to give finding upon disputed question.Permanent injunction — Plaintiff not coming to Court with clean hands and suppressing material facts — Would not be entitled to relief of injunction.Interim injunction — One who seeks equitable relief under O. 39, Rule 6, is also required to come with clean hands and not suppress material facts — Plaintiff found to be guilty of suppressio veri suggestio falsi for having concealed material information from scrutiny of Court — Refusal to grant injunction — ProperRevocation of licence by owner - Licensee not being in “possession” no question of dispossession - Injunction against owner - Cannot be granted on ground of apprehension of “dispossession” without due process of law.Estoppel — Contract of life insurance — Person making a wrong statement with knowledge of consequence therefor — Estopped from pleading that even if such a fact had been disclosed, it would not have made any material change. Insurance Act (4 of 1938), Pre.S. 145 deals with de facto possession and not dejure possession — No oral or documentary evidence to determine actual physical possession of petitioner — Possession was with other party — Merely because of pendency of mutation proceeding it could not be said that other party was not in possession of landed property — Restoration of possession to other party — Not improper.Prevention of breach of peace – Power of Magistrate – Merely because civil suit is pending relating to property in dispute, jurisdiction of Magistrate to proceed u/S. 145 is not taken away – Order of status quo passed by Revenue Court – Hands of Magistrate are not tied for purpose and object of proceedings u/S. 145 to maintain law & order & to prevent breach of peace – Order for attachment of property by Magistrate – Not illegal.Dispute as to property — Appointment of receiver — Magistrate cannot summarily pass an order under Section 146(1) without recording a preliminary order under S. 145(1) — However, taking into consideration events that had taken place, direction issued that present arrangement has to be continued until Magistrate takes requisite steps to preserve public peace and to avoid any law and order problem.Order passed under S. 145 — Mandatory requirements — Order passed without passing of preliminary order under S. 145(1) — Held, not passing of preliminary order under sub-sec. (1) of S. 145 of Cr. P. C. vitiates entire proceedings — Merely sending a notice is itself not sufficient to comply mandatory requirements under S. 145(1) 2004 Cri LJ 91 (Mad) and 2003 Cri LJ 3820 (Mad), Rel. on.Breach of peace — Mere information that a dispute is likely to cause a breach of peace — Is not sufficient to exercise powers u/S. 145 of Cr. P.C. — Person who is in possession of property in dispute cannot be disposed and receiver cannot be appointed merely on basis of such an information — When petitioner himself was in possession of Ashram, it was duty of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Police to give him protection, instead of initiating proceedings under S. 145(1) of Cr. P.C. or passing orders u/S. 146(1) of Cr. P.C.Proceedings for breach of peace — Initiation of — Failure of Magistrate to assign any ground for his satisfaction that dispute had given rise to serious apprehension of breach of peace — Moreover dispute, if any between parties was a private dispute, which did not involve people in locality — Hence, such a dispute could not have been made foundation for drawing of proceeding under S. 145. AIR 1985 SC 472, Rel. on.Order passed by Magistrate under S. 145 — Civil Court may still in suit pass order of injunction. Civil P. C. (5 of 1908), O. 39, R. 1.Dispute over title of property — Proceedings under S. 145 — Triable issue had been raised by plaintiff — Plaintiff had been residing with his family over structure raised by him over disputed property — Both balance of convenience as also irreparable injury lie in favour of plaintiff — Defendant had been kept out of possession for long time — In circumstances order of injunction in favour of plaintiff would have subserved interest of justice — Direction therefore issued to parties to maintain status quo till decision of Civil Court. Cri. Misc. No. 1709 of 2008, D/- 19-6-2008 (Ker.), Reversed.Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), Ss. 4, 5, 20 — Offence of dishonour of cheque — Evidence on affidavit — S. 145 of N.I. Act has overriding effect on provisions of Criminal P. C. providing contrary procedure for complainant—™s evidence at stage of enquiry or trial — Evidence of complainant may be given on affidavit not only during course of trial but even at pre-summoning stage i.e. before issue of process pursuant to S. 204 of Criminal P.C.Document not compulsorily registrable — Family settlement — Document simply reciting past events — Need not be registered — Unstamped and unregistered family settlement and map annexed thereto can be allowed to be exhibited. AIR 1988 SC 881, Rel. on.Decree for a specific performa is in discretion of Court but is not to be refused arbitrarily -the claimant must come to Court with clean hands - Respondent was bonafide purchaser for value without notice - Courts rightly refused to exercise discretion - Appeal dismissed.Suppression of material fact is viewed seriously by the Superior Courts exercising their discretionary jurisdictionTemporary injunction — Suppression of material fact — Party suppressing material fact not entitled to equitable relief of injunction.Injunction — Balance of convenience — Must be held to be in favour of granting information — No injunction can be granted only if there is prima facie case but no balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of plaintiff.Question of balance of convenience and irreparable loss — Respondent acquiring right of development of suit property — Interim order preventing development would case irreparable loss and injury to respondent since it would not be able to utilize property till suit and appeal is disposed of — Respondent therefore permitted to carry out construction activities over disputed land, however restrained from alienating or transferring property or from creating any third party right therein during pendency of suit.

Injunction against dispossession — Refusal to grant ad interim ex parte injunction — Appeal against — Order of appellate Court ordering status quo without indicating what the status quo was — Not proper.Unregistered sale deed - Admissibility - Suit for specific performance of contract - Defendantss case that plaintiff fraudulently obtained signatures on sale deed by stating it to be an agreement for sale and hence its registration was refused - Unregistered sale deed tendered as evidence - Plaintiffs case that sale deed executed by defendants not registered due to order of attachment of property - Same held to be inadmissible by trial court - Revision petition - Dismissed by High Court. Held having regard to the proviso to Section 49 the courts below erred in not admitting the unregistered sale deed. Under the proviso unregistered document affecting immovable property and required to be registered by 1908 Act/ Transfer of Property Act, 1882 may be admitted as evidence of contract in a suit for specific performance or of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. Thus an unregistered sale deed was admissible as proof of an oral agreement of sale but not as evidence of a completed sale.

Ready and willing to perform — Pleading and proof — Specific performance — Suit for — Plaintiff has to show that his conduct has been blemishless throughout — Provision imposes personal bar in event of plaintiff failing to do so — In suit, there was claim in respect of particular khasra number which did not form part of agreement — Plaint itself indicated that said khasra number was added later on — There was also an averment to effect that agreement related to a completed sale — Dismissal of suit on ground that requirements of S. 16(c) were not met — No interference. 2005 AIR SCW 4789, 2000 AIR SCW 2554, 1999 AIR SCW 2959, AIR 1968 SC 1355, Rel. on.Impleadment of party — Transferee pending suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Transfer made by transferees from defendant without leave of Court — Cannot claim impleadment in view of doctrine of lis pendens — Order impleading them on ground that there was nobody to represent and safeguard their interest — Liable to be set aside. 2007 (1) AIR Jhar R 254 : AIR 2007 (NOC) 520 (Jhar), Reversed. Impleadment of party — Transferee pending suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Transfer made by transferees from defendant without leave of Court — Cannot claim impleadment in view of doctrine of lis pendens — Order impleading them on ground that there was nobody to represent and safeguard their interest — Liable to be set aside. 2007 (1) AIR Jhar R 254 : AIR 2007 (NOC) 520 (Jhar), Reversed. Plaintiffs alleging that first defendant executed agreement of sale in their favour — Denied by first defendant — Burden to prove that first defendant had executed agreement would be on plaintiff and not on first defendant to prove the negative — Various circumstances when taken together, creating doubt about the genuineness of agreement and dislodge effect of evidence adduced by plaintiff — Dismissal of suit — Was proper.Amendment of plaint — Suit for specific performance of contract to sell — Mistake in description of suit property in plaint — Amendment sought to rectify mistake in plaint as well as in contract — Can be allowed in view of S. 26 — Nature of suit not changed by amendment.Amendment of plaint — Suit for specific performance of contract to sell — Mistake in description of suit property in plaint — Amendment sought to rectify mistake in plaint as well as in contract — Can be allowed in view of S. 26 — Nature of suit not changed by amendment.

The discretion u/S. 34 which the Court has to exercise is a judicial discretion. That discretion has to be exercised on well-settled principles. Therefore, the Court has consider the nature of obligation in respect of which performance is sought, circumstances under which the decision came to be made, the conduct of the parties and the effect of the Court granting the decree. In such cases, the Court has to look at the contract. The Court has to ascertain whether there exists an element of mutuality in the contract. If there is absence of mutuality the Court will not exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiff. Even if, want of mutuality is regarded as discretionary and not as an absolute bar to specific performance the Court has to consider the entire conduct of the parties in relation to the subject-matter and in case of any disqualifying circumstances the Court will not grant the relief prayed for.Agreement to reconvey property — Time is of essence in such agreements — No evidence showing that plaintiff had offered to pay consideration in time fixed — Plaintiff’s claim liable to be dismissed. Contract ActSuit for specific performance — Agreement to sell — Vendor having no authority to sell property at time of execution of agreement with plaintiff — Agreement has no legal sanction — Suit on basis thereof is incompetent — Subsequent sale of property to third party — Third party found to be bona fide purchaser for value without notice — Sale is protected by S. 19(b) — Refusal of relief of specific performance to plaintiff — Proper.Agreement to sell — Specific performance of — Contract made by agent of purchasers — Purchasers knowing fully well that owner of property would not sell property to them in view of earlier disputes between them entered into agreement with third person as their agent — That third person by misrepresenting that he wanted to purchase property for himself obtained consent of owners of property — Such consent obtained by fraud or misrepresentation is not free consent — Such contract is voidable at instance of owner — Fact that third person was agent of purchasers was disclosed for first time in notice for specific performance — Hence even under S. 231 owners can refuse to fulfill contract — Decree for specific performance liable to be set aside.Agreement to sell share in coparcenary property — Relief of specific performance — Grant of — Vendor cosharer entering into contract in respect of his share as also on behalf of other co-sharer — Denial on part of other co-sharers to sell their share on ground of no authority being given to vendor co-sharer — In such case decree for specific performance can be granted to extent of share of vendor co-sharer — After purchase of share of vendor, vendee would step into shoes of vendor and would become co-sharer and can always seek partition.Void agreement — Defendant, under belief that virtue of allotment order itself he had authority to sell away property, which he got allotted from Development Authority — Allotment order showed by defendant to plaintiff and the latter believed that defendant had authority to sell away said property in her favour and under that belief she agreed to purchase same — Both plaintiff and defendant proceeded with transaction under a mistake as to fact that defendant had authority under said allotment order to sell property and, therefore, they entered into said agreement of sale — Said mistake of fact was mutual between both parties besides being essential for said agreement — By virtue of provisions of S. 20 said agreement of sale became void and unenforceable in law.

Hindu Law - – Joint family property – Alienation by Karta is permissible for legal necessity — Karta executing agreement to sell – He cannot subsequently avoid execution of sale deed on ground that his wife and son also had share in joint family property – Question whether sale was for legal necessity would arise after alienation was challenged – If sale was for legal necessity, it would bind every one including son – If aggrieved, son may seek to have the alienation set aside.Limitation Act (36 of 1963) - Art. 58 — Suit for declaration — Limitation —Sale deedd executed by power of attorney holder — Limitation for challenging the power of attorney and the sale deed was to be from the date of registration of the said document, especially when, possession was also handed over to vendors in pursuance to the sale deed and mutation was also duly sanctioned — Suit filed after expiry of 3 years — Barred by limitation.Temporary injunction to restrain alienation of property — Suit for cancellation of sale deed pending — Power of Attorney holder misused his authority and executed sale deed in favour of third party — Third party was in physical possession of property — Court restrained third party from alienating land as agricultural land was being sold for purposes of colonisation Possibility of fraud also not ruled out since Power of Attorney holder had execute sale deed in favour of his wife.Bar to subsequent suit — When not applicable — Withdrawal of earlier suit cannot bar subsequent suit merely because there was some overlapping of cause of action in subsequent suit compared with earlier suit.

Temporary injunction — Refusal — Validity — Suit for cancellation of sale deeds — Purchaser under sale deed in question was close relative and adopted son of seller, his right to sell his property was not in dispute — Purchaser had sufficient funds to purchase said agricultural land in question and adoption prima facie appeared to be genuine — Plaintiffs did not have a prima facie case in their favour for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendants from further alienating property or to direct status quo of suit property to be maintained — Validity of sale deed in question will be determined on basis of further evidence — Refusal to grant temporary injunction, properCourt fees — Determination — Suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed — Suit property was agricultural land — Word —œvalue of the property— and not —market value— of property is used in S. 6(iv)(ha) — Hence value of property for which sale deed was executed would be relevant and not its market value for determining Court fees.Delay in filing appeal — Condonation application — Application should be decided first — Posting the matter at time of final hearing of appeal, improper.Suit for declaration that mutation was illegal, null and void — No pleadings or evidence as to date on which plaintiff had derived knowledge about mutation and/or Will — Suit, rightly held as barred by limitation considering pleadings as a whole as set out in plaint.Revision petition — Delay in filing — Condonation of — What counts is not length of delay but sufficiency of cause.Condonation of delay — Sufficient cause — —œLiberal approach— — Does not mean doing injustice to opposite party — Application to set aside abatement — Made belatedly — Ground raised for condonation not sufficient and also unbelievable — Delay cannot be condoned — Provisions of O. 22, R. 9 cannot be so construed so as to make it redundant. Highly belated appeal — Against award of reference Court — Condonation of delay — Appellant beneficiary informed about decision taken by Govt. to not file appeal — Yet indulging in making representation to Govt. — Filing appeal long after lapse of limitation — Beneficiary thus was not diligent in availing remedy of appeal — Delay not liable to be condoned.S. 5 — Delay in filing revision — Condonation of — “Sufficient cause’ — Delay of 36 days sought to be explained by bald statement that petitioner was suffering from viral fever and doctor had advised bed rest — No medical certificate produced to that effect — Explanation not credible — Delay cannot be condoned. Revision challenging order issuing process — Date of service of summons is the date of knowledge for revision petitioner to seek remedy of revision — Limitation would start from date of knowledge.Revision filed after expiry of about two decades — Liable to be dismissed — Revisional powers cannot be used arbitrarily at belated stage. Interpretation of statutes — Purpose and object of enactment.Order setting applicant ex parte — Application for cancellation of — Limitation — Application u/O. 9, R. 7 shall be governed by Art. 137 which prescribes period of three years.Review — “Error apparent on face of record” — Decision is erroneous in law or different view on law or fact in possible — Not ground for review.Review — “Error apparent on face of record” — Will not encompass an error which is not self evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning — Re-hearing and correction of erroneous decision — Not permissible under O. 47, R. 1 — Review Petition cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.Review — Judgment in question — Cannot be reconsidered on self same grounds just because another conclusion is possible — Scope of review cannot be confused with that of appeal. Error apparent on face of record — Alleged error far from self evident — Can be established only by lengthy and complicated arguments — Not an error apparent on face of record.Power of review — Exercise of — Is permissible on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of person seeking review or could not be produced by him at time when order was made — It can be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on face of record is found — But it cannot be exercised on ground that decision was erroneous on merits.Causing death by negligence — Proof — Deceased was crushed underneath left rear tyres of truck — Accident had taken place at crowded place — How deceased came in contact with rear left tyres of truck and was crushed, not stated by witness — Prosecution had not examined any independent eye-witness — No necessary facts on record to prove rash or negligent driving by truck driver — Acquittal of accused, properCourt empowered to discharge accused if two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion – Whether trial will end in conviction or acquittal – Not relevant at this stage.Framing of charge — Charges can be framed if Court finds two views are possible from materials produced on record — But if only one and one view is possible to be taken — Court cannot put accused to harassment by asking him to face trial. Constitution of IndiaCausing death by negligence — Proof — Accused allegedly driving tempo-truck at high speed hit motor cyclist — Path of movement of vehicles must be sought to be established in course of investigation and not be left open to ambiguity and doubt — Questions whether motor cyclist was taking turn on a green light or a red light and so too whether petitioner was driving tempo/truck crossing green light or a red light remained unanswered as site plan had not been exhibited — Non-examination of investigating officer resulted in prejudice being caused to accused — Testimony of head constable that accused was driving vehicle at “high speed” — Expression “high speed” is an unclear expression — No evidence to conclusively indicate that accused was driving vehicle in rash and negligent manner — Accused is entitled to be acquitted. 1998 SCC (Cri) 1508 Folletting aside ex parte decree — Expression sufficient cause— — Meaning — Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. Words and Phrases — Sufficient cause— — Meaning. Notice served by registered post as well as by publication in newspaper — Presumption of service — Presumption cannot be rebutted by bald statement made by wife that she was living at different address with her brother — Respondent wife made no attempt to establish there had been fraud or collusion between husband and postman — No case that “National Herald†daily newspaper published from Delhi did not have wide circulation in Delhi or in area where wife was residing with her brother — Ex parte decree, not liable to be set aside.

Neither the transferor 'J' nor the transferee 'S' took steps for incorporating change of ownership in the certificate of registration. Hence, 'J' must be deemed to continue as the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of the Act and was therefore equally liable for payment of compensation. As insurance policy was in his name he would be indemnified and the claim would shift to the insurer. Temporary injunction — Suit for partition — Plaintiffs on one side claimed that they were entitled to property as Class II heirs of deceased and defendant on other side claimed property on basis of Will — Issue as to who would be entitled, and shares to which they would be entitled to, required to be decided by trial Court — During pendency of proceedings before trial Court, property needs to be protected — Defendant restrained from transferring or from selling property in dispute, but with liberty to carry out repairs for maintenance of property.Grant of bail — Denial — Legality — Petitioner accused alleged to have committed offence under Ss. 447 and 302 of Penal Code — Although accused was minor, his application seeking bail was rejected — Plea by accused that gravity of offence committed cannot be ground for declining bail to juvenile as S. 12 was mandatory — Was tenable — As per S. 12 bail should be granted to juvenile irrespective of nature or gravity of offence — And in absence of exceptional circumstances for denying bail — Order rejecting bail to accused was liable to be set aside.Temporary injunction — Refusal — Validity — Suit filed for declaration of sale deed as ineffective and to return Land in dispute back to plaintiff — In such case, in order to protect interest of parties, trial Court should have directed that parties should maintain status quo — Such an order would have prevented emergence of third party rights and also emergence of future litigation — Refusal to grant injunction, improper.Dishonour of Cheque — Signed blank cheque issued by drawer-accused — Extent of liability disputed — As yet, drawee/complainant filled-up cheque for an amount not admitted by drawer — Accused able to prove that there is bona fide dispute with regard to extent of liability — Dishonour of cheque under such circumstance does not attract prosecution u/S. 138 of N. I. Act — Dismissal of complaint is proper.Dishonour of Cheque — Words —œfor discharge of any debt or other liability— in S. 138 — Should be interpreted to mean current existing or past ascertained liabilities — Appellant-Company supplied products on credit to dealers — Dealers required to deposit signed blank cheques as a security for credit supply — Such cheques issued in respect of future liabilities not in existence as on the date of cheque would not attract prosecution u/S. 138 of N.I. Act. AIR 2003 SC 3014, Disting.Dishonour of cheque — Statutory presumption is in favour of holder that cheque has been issued for discharge of debt or liability — Defence of accused has to be specific as to why cheque was issued — If it was issued for purpose of security or any other purpose then cheque issued did not come within purview of S. 138 of Act.

It is well-known that the appellate court would not interfere with a judgment of acquittal only because another view is possible. On the other hand, if two views are possible, it is trite, the appellate court shall not interfere. It is one of those cases, where two views were not possible.Application for setting aside ex parte order — Maintainability — Hearing of suit completed and suit adjourned for pronouncing judgment — Order 9, R. 7 would have no application — Order cannot be set aside by invoking O. 9, R. 7 or S. 151.An order passed by a person lacking inherent jurisdiction would be a nullity. The principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or even res judicata which are procedural in nature would have no application in a case where an order has been passed by the Tribunal/Court which has no authority in that behalf. Any order passed by a Court without jurisdiction would be coram non judice being a nullity, the same ordinarily should not be given effect to. However, a distinction must be made between a decree passed by a Court which has no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction in the light of Section 21 and a decree passed by a Court having no jurisdiction in regard to the subject-matter of the suit. Whereas in the former case, the appellate Court may not interfere with the decree unless prejudice is shown, ordinarily the second category of the cases would be interfered with.Amendment of pleading — Permissibility — Amendment even if permitted was not advancing case of plaintiff — Proposed amendment was not consistent with case set up in plaint — Order refusing permission to amendment of pleadings proper.Amendment of written statement — Application filed after commencement of trial — No justifiable and cogent reasons for delay in moving amendment application given — Finding recorded that facts sought to be incorporated by amendment were in knowledge of petitioner and that amendment if allowed would materially change nature of dispute — Rejection of amendment application, proper.Defendants by way of amendment making all efforts to build up different but incompatible aspects of defence and in that exercise have placed on record several doubtful documents — Amendment as prayed for was not appear bona fide and allowing same would be causing serious prejudice to plaintiff — Amendment cannot be allowed.Withdrawal of admission — Permissibility — Admission once made is binding on party — In another case also admission written statements were filed — It cannot be said that written statement was due to misrepresentation or fraud as alleged — No details of fraud, misrepresentation given — Admission cannot be withdrawn by way of amendment.Withdrawal of admission — Permissibility — Suit for partition — By way of amendment defendant-petitioner wanted to bring on fact that all shops were constructed on land which was not ancestral — Proposed amendment had effect of withdrawal of clear admission made in written statement by defendant that shops were constructed on land which came into his share — Rejection of amendment, proper.

Amendment of written statement — Withdrawal of admission earlier made by way of amendment —Not permissible — Such amendment cannot be allowed.Amendment seeking withdrawal of admission made in written statement and completely substituting original written statement by new one — Not permissibleDeceased died due to motor-cycle accident — Back tier of vehicle burst and deceased fell down and received head injury — Tribunal dismissed claim application on ground that it was case of self accident of owner and driver of vehicle and no third party involved — Errone-ous — Whenever any accident occurs causing death or injury to a person in course of use of vehicle jurisdiction of Claims Tribu-nal arises — Matter remitted to Tribunal.Accident claim — Entitlement to compensation — Married daughter of deceased — Though not dependant on deceased is entitled to compensation — She is ‘legal representative’ under S. 166. 2004 (1) Cal LJ 205, Reversed.Unstamped and unregistered document, even if not admissible in evidence, can be looked into for collateral purpose — Plaintiff therefore can be allowed to lead secondary evidence in respect of such document. AIR 2003 SC 1905, Foll.Dishonour of cheque — Complaint — Averments that notice sent under S. 138 Proviso (b) was evaded by accused or that accused had played role in return of notice unserved — Not necessary in view of presumption under S. 27 of G. C. Act. General Clauses Act Dishonour of cheque — Complaint — Averments that notice sent under S. 138 Proviso (b) was evaded by accused or that accused had played role in return of notice unserved — Not necessary in view of presumption under S. 27 of G. C. Act. General Clauses Act

Condonation of delay — Appellant illiterate villagers going place to place for work — Getting knowledge of order passed against them only when they reached their village — Appeal filed immediately on knowing that they should file appeal — Delay stands sufficiently explained — Dismissal of second appeal on ground of limitation — Improper.Condonation of delay — Application for — Court while deciding application cannot go into merits of case — Averments made in application moreover, sufficient to explain delay — Order refusing to condone delay in filing appeal — Liable to be set aside.

Withdrawal of admission — Permissibility — Suit for eviction —Plea taken by defendant-tenant in written statement that suit premises were—کnot—™ governed by Rent Control Act — Subsequently, amendment sought to delete word —

Dishonour of cheque — Complaint — Giving of notice to drawer — When to be presumed — Notice despatched by sender by post with correct address on it — It can be deemed to be served on sendee unless he proves that it was not really served.

Partition suit — Preliminary decree — Application for drawing up of final decree — Not subject to any period of limitation — Conceptual change in Code suggested.Although no period of limitation has been prescribed for exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the same would not mean that the suo motu power can be exercised at any time. Revisional jurisdiction should ordinarily be exercised within a period of three years having regard to the purport in terms of the Act. In any event, the same should not exceed the period of five yearsApplication seeking condonation of delay should be decided first posting the matter for final hearing of appeal itself — Improper. AIR 2002 SC 204 and AIR 1956 SC 367S. 65 — Secondary evidence — Photocopy of document — Admissibility — Executor merely admitted his signatures on photocopy of power of attorney but denied its content thereof — Court without considering probative value of contents of document, decreed suit for specific performance — Improper.Photostat copy of will — Admissibility — Loss of original copy — Proof — Date on which plaintiff had handed over original will to his counsel not given in petition — Document with endorsement of officer in Nagar Palika, who had compared copy of will filed in Nagar Palika with original will taken by plaintiff, not produced — Witness did not remember as to when original will was shown to officer in Nagar Palika — Plaintiff thereby had not proved loss of original will — Secondary evidence in shape of Photostat copy of original will, would not be admissible in evidence.Secondary evidence — Original Will not produced — Registered copy of Will — Cannot be allowed to be relied upon as secondary evidence.Original Will not produced — Existence of original Will duly admitted and not denied by defendants in written statements — Certified copy of Will is admissible — Can be produced and marked in evidence. AIR 2001 SC 1151, 2007 (4) AIR Kar R 20, DistingExecution of Will — When said to be proved — Original Will was not at all produced before Court — No pleading or evidence of loss of original Will — Even otherwise copy of such Will was not produced — Party even did not seek to prove Will by secondary evidence — Since no amount of oral evidence about execution of any Will would be admissible unless original was produced or copy was produced and loss of original was proved — In such circumstances, Will executed by deceased cannot be said to be proved.Secondary evidence — Photostat copy of Original agreement of sale — Not admissible in evidence when fact of loss of original not established.Certified copy of the Will is not a public doucment within meaning of S. 74 — Not admissible per se in evidence — Consequently certified copy of Will produced on record of case cannot be presumed to be primary document which could be adduced in evidence and same could be proved only by leading secondary evidence after taking permission of Court and proving loss, destruction etc. of document.Public document — Does not include pleadings of party — It comes within purview of private document — Therefore, certified copy of a written statement allegedly filed by plaintiff in an earlier suit, is not per se admissible in evidenceInjunction — Grant of — Besides consideration of basic elements, Court must consider conduct of parties.Interim relief — Grant of — Court while granting interim relief granted main relief itself — This is impermissible. Claim for Khatedari rights — Mere possession of land not sufficient to claim Khatedari rights — It should be coupled with payment of rent and contract express or implied — Payment of rent by plaintiff tenant not established — No Khatedari rights can be claimed.

Filing of frivolous suit — Amounts to abuse of process of Court — Such suit cannot be dismissed under O. 7, R. 11 since grounds mentioned in O. 7, R. 11 are that suit is barred by law or it does not disclose cause of action or proper Court-fees had not been paid — But Court is not helpless and can invoke powers under S. 151 and dismiss suit under S. 151.Application for rejection of plaint — Ground that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute — Rejection — Validity — Dispute relating to securities transaction — Under rules and by-laws framed by Bombay Stock Exchange for any dispute between Broker, Sub-Broker and client, specific provision of arbitration was provided and dispute was required to be sent for arbitration before Arbitration Committee constituted by Bombay Stock Exchange — By-laws of Bombay Stock Exchange not considered while deciding application under O. 7, R. 11 — Improper — Matter remitted for decision afresh.Return of plaint — Suit for permanent injunction — Suit related to agricultural land and was not triable by Civil Court — Then Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to dismiss the suit also — At the most suit could be returned to plaintiff for presentation of same in Competent Court having jurisdiction.o.7, r. 11, S. 92 — Rejection of plaint — Application for, should be made prior to grant of leave of Court or at time when appellants opposed grant of leave — Once leave is granted question of rejecting plaint under O. 7, r. 11 did not arise. (Para 11)Court-fee — Suit for declaration that sale deed executed by plaintiff—™s father is null and void and for joint possession — Is not a suit for cancellation of sale deed — Court-fee need not be paid on sale consideration mentioned in sale deeds — Court-fee payable is computable under Section 7(iv)(c). Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 34.Declaratory decree — Suit for cancellation of sale deed, and general power of attorney as being null and void and for injunction against defendant — Suit cannot be considered as one for mere declaratory relief — Trial Court without referring to Ss. 38 and 26 of Act erroneously accepted Court fee paid by plaintiff by as per S. 24 of Act — Matter remanded to trial Court to determine correct Court fee payable as regards market value of suit property as on date of suit.

Inspite of the Court having proceeded ex parte earlier, the defendant is entitled to appear and participate in the subsequent proceedings as of rightAncestral property — Succession prior to 1994 amendment — Father having seven sons three daughters — His ancestral property prior to his death would be divided in eight equal parts i.e. 1/8th for himself and 1/8th each for the seven sons — Each of the sons will get 1/8th share in the total property — On the demise of father his 1/8th share will go to his widow — It would be only on the demise of his widow the seven sons and three daughters will get equal share in the share held by her — On her death the seven sons and three daughters thus will each get 1/10 share from the 1/8th share of the total property and, therefore, each one of them will have 1/8th share in the total property — Order of Court making 11 parts of total property inherited by father by treating 11 coparcener in all i.e. father, seven son and three daughters not proper as married daughters could not get equal shares with sons prior to (1994) amendment introducing chapter II-A consisting of Ss. 29A to 29CAncestral property — Property inherited by sons in individual capacity — Son’s son/sons have no right therein as coparceners by their birth — Sale deed executed by one of members of family — Plaintiffs as sons are not entitled to declaration that sales are not binding on their shares.Joint family property — Suit to set aside sale — Ground that it was not for legal necessity — Sale in question by plaintiff’s father — Plaintiff’s father inheriting property along with his sister — Land partitioned and recorded in name of each — Loses character of joint family property — S. 6 has not application — Plaintiff’s father and his sisters were tenants in common — Each had right to transfer his share of land — Suit liable to be dismissedLiability of Insurance Company — Deceased, a traveller in private vehicle — Is a third party — Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability.

Insurer cannot escape liability on ground that owner of vehicle had not given intimation of transfer of vehicle.

Setting aside of ex parte decree — It is knowledge of ‘date of hearing’ and not knowledge of pendency of suit which is relevant for second proviso to O. 9, R. 13 — No summon of application under S. 6 of Act of 1957 for specific date was served upon petitioner — Presumption of service of summon upon him cannot be drawn only on basis of pendency of application under S. 6 of Act — Ex parte decree passed liable to be set aside. AIR 2002 SC 2370, Rel. on.

Effect of substituting or adding new plaintiff or defendant - Suit filed against dead person - Application for substituting legal heirs - Error committed due to a mistake made in good faith - Held that its effect is not to begin from the date on which the application for the purpose was made, or from the date of permission but from the date of the suit, deeming it to have been correctly instituted on an earlier date than the date of making the application

, CPC, pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant. The whole plaint has to be read and if it discloses no cause of action, then, the plaint as a whole, or part of the plaint can be rejected. In the instant case, the defendant had filed application under O. 7,

estoration of suit — Application for — Limitation as to — Application filed after delay of about 4آ½ years — No limitation prescribed for filing an application u/O. 9, R. 7 — It is open to Court to condone absence of defendant at any stage of proceedings — However only at stage when matter posted for judgment after completing trial proceedings, application filed u/O. 9, R. 7 cannot be maintained.

Liability of insurer — Third party risk — Whether person travelling in goods carrier is covered under —کthird party—™ liability — Deceased succumbed to injuries sustained while attempting to board goods carrier from behind — Evidence shows that driver of vehicle enabled deceased board vehicle and for whatever reasons suddenly moved vehicle and in such process deceased fell down and succumbed to injuries sustained by him — Even though driver carried out an unauthorized act of carrying passenger in goods vehicle — Owner cannot be absolved of its vicarious liability for negligent careless act of driver — Deceased covered very much within phrase —

Document not duly stamped — Effect — Unregistered Deed of sale — Adequate stamp duty not paid thereon — Not admissible in evidence in terms of S. 35 — Said document would not also be admissible for collateral purpose — Impounding of said document — Was proper. Registration Act (16 of 1908), S. 49.Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) - O. 7, R. 11(d) — Re-jection of plaint — Ground of limitation — If a suit on face of it is barred by limitation it can be rejected under O. 7, R. 11 of Code — However question whether suit is within limitation is to be considered only on basis of averments in plaint. If a suit is on the face of it barred by limitation it can be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code. In such a case it is not necessary to push the parties to trial merely because limitation is mixed question of fact and law. But it does not follow that the objections of the defendant to the date shown in the plaint as the date of accrual of cause of action can be looked into at that stage. The question whether the suit is within limitation or not would have to be considered by the Court for the purpose of application for rejection of plaint only on the basis of averments in the plaint.Limitation Act (36 of 1963) - Art. 54 — Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 20 — Suit for specific performance of contract — Starting point of limitation — If date is not fixed in contract limitation starts from date of refusal on part of defendant to perform contract — Refusal requires demand by plaintiff and if demand is refused, that gives cause of action — Refusal to re-deliver possession by defendant will not give rise to cause of action — Cause of action was for demand of execution of sale deed — Plaint does not show as to when demand was made by plaintiff for registering sale deed in his favour — Burden is on plaintiff to show that there was embargo to be lifted by Govt. and it had prevented plaintiff from seeking registration of the sale — Waiting for 19 years, does not give right to plaintiff to sue for specific performance, but for penalty of Rs. 30,000/-

A plea of limitation cannot be decided as an abstract principle of law divorced from facts as in every case the starting point of limitation has to be ascertained which is entirely a question of fact. A plea of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. Counter-claim — Payment of Court-fees — Plaintiff filing appeal challenging decree of Court dismissing their suit for recovery of amount as also decreeing amount of counter-claim — Plaintiffs are required to pay Court-fee on amount of counter-claim — If court-fee is not paid in respect of decree on counter-claim, that part of decree would be final and would operate as res judicata. AIR 1997 Ker 318, Rel. on.the merits of the case can be decided before the delivery of the judgment and if the court comes to the conclusion that the court-fee paid is deficient, it may defer the pronouncement of the judgment and ask the party to pay the deficit court-fee as per valuation of the Court, Thus, the multiplicity of the proceedings delay in the disposal of the suit and calling and recalling the witnesses every time can be avoided and it will serve the cause of justice and the cause of litigants alsoEviction proceedings against tenants — Filing of affidavits by landlord — Act does not limit landlords—™ right to file affidavits after pleadings are complete and in course of inquiry — Landlord can file affidavits even after rejoinder is filed and prior permission of Court would not be necessary.

Eviction of tenant — Ground that landlord required suit shop for running his own business — Earlier landlord used to sit with his son in latter’s shop but subsequently there had been some disputes between them and relations between them became strained resulting thereby his son declined to allow his father to sit in shop in which his son had business of trading in cement — Bona fide need proved — Tenant liable to be evicted.

Rejection of plaint — Application for — Ground that suit for injunction was barred by law — Suit premises given on lease by general body of society to defendant by way of resolution — Prima facie relationship of landlord and tenant established — Suit filed for injunction was in effect for seeking revocation of said resolution and dispossession — Such a suit could only be filed before Rent Tribunal — Civil Court’s jurisdiction would be barred — Plaint liable to be rejected.Suit for eviction — Bona fide need of landlord — Plaintiff landlord needed suit land for construction of their own residential house — Defendant tenant had constructed his own show room and was using suit land only for keeping his wooden stock — Need of landlord held bona fide — Tenant liable to be evicted.Suit for eviction — Ground of personal bona fide necessity — Death of landlord during pendency of suit — Bona fide need would continue even after his death as it was claimed for himself and his son — Subsequent events in form of sale of said property would not ipso facto upset the decree — Attornment in favour of purchaser would be automatic — Purchaser of property would be entitled for vacant possession. 1987 (Supp) SCC 630 and 1998 DNJ (Raj) 293, Distg.

Suit for eviction — Ground of sub- letting — Suit property let out to original tenant prior to her entering into partnership firm — Subsequently he shifted to London and never returned — Partnership managed by other defendant and was never registered with Registrar of Firms — Partnership was thus drawn up merely to provide a cover and to make believe that original tenant had not parted with possession of suit premises in favour of defendant — Subletting proved — Eviction ordered, not improper.Bona fide need — Petition filed taking grounds of bona fide need and that property in question was taken on rent for residential purpose but, later on, school was opened in said premises and tenant started using said property for commercial purpose — Finding of fact recorded that premises was let out for commercial purpose — On such case Chapters II and III of Act will apply and landlord would be entitled for eviction decree upon ground of bona fide necessity.Eviction — Ground of bona fide need — Suit filed only when tenant did not agree to pay enhanced rent — Petition also suffered from suppression of material facts — Claim for eviction on ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement liable to be rejected.Suit for eviction — Personal bona fide necessity — Landlord having factory for manufacturing furniture and handicrafts required suit shop for opening their showroom of furniture and handicrafts — Plea that no books of accounts were produced before trial Court to show loss caused on account of non-setting up showroom, not tenable — Since sufferance of actual loss of non-setting up of showroom of furniture and handicrafts was not necessary as such loss could not be measured in terms of money nor it was recorded in books of accounts — Suit decreed on ground of personal bona fide need, not improper.Commercial premises — Suit for eviction — Bona fide need — Landlord had retired from Govt. service and he wanted to do his own business in suit premises — Death of landlord during pendency of appeal — Requirement of premises by his legal heirs namely widow will not extinguish on his death — Fact that widow was getting pension and her sons were also in employment, cannot be ground to deny her possession — Even widow has her own independent right of survival and earn her livelihood after death of her husband — Eviction ordered.Suit for eviction — Default in payment of rent — Rent provisionally determined in terms of S. 13(3) of 1950 Act — But no order passed by trial court in suit and defence of tenant was not struck off — Subsequent withdrawal of suit after enforcement of Act of 2001 — No provision akin to provisions of S. 13(3) to 13(5) of the Act of 1950, providing for determination of rent provisionally or striking out defence on account of non payment of amount determined provisionally or monthly rent subsequent thereto, incorporated in Act of 2001 — Question of striking out the defence of the tenant in proceedings for eviction u/S. 9 of the Act of 2001 would not arise — Even if, any such right had accrued to petitioner during pendency of eviction proceedings before trial Court under Act of 1950, the same cannot be enforced in fresh eviction proceedings lodged under provisions of S. 9 of Act of 2001.Amendment in written statement — Permissibility — Crutial date is date of petition — Suit for eviction of tenant from shop — Amendment sought in appeal to incorporate plea that ground of bona fide necessity ceased to exist due to appointment of son of landlord in Bank — Fact of appointment was not in existence at stage of trial — If such application will be allowed at appellate stage then certainly at every stage after adjudication, parties will take plea of amendment and no trial Court will be able to adjudicate matter finally and there will be no end of dispute — Said ground cannot be allowed to take away ground of personal bona fide necessity of landlord — Amendment cannot be allowed. AIR 2005 SC 1274, Rel. on. AIR 2007 SC 2511, AIR 2002 SC 3369, DistingSubstituted service — Directions for, issued without recording satisfaction that defendants cannot be served personally — No efforts made to get defendants served personally in ordinary way — Service of summons cannot be considered to be sufficient and in accordance with law.Setting aside ex parte decree — On basis of material on record, no conclusion could be drawn that defendants had notice about date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear before Court and answer plaintiff— s claim — In interest of justice, defendants deserve to be granted an opportunity to contest suit — Ex parte decree set aside.Possession of contraband — Search and seizure — Competent authority — Sub-Inspector who conducted search and seizure was not posted as Station House Officer at relevant time at concerned Police Station — Thus, search and seizure cannot be said to have been conducted by competent officer — Conviction of accused liable to be set aside.Amendment of decree — Interest portion accidently slipped by office while drafting preliminary decree — Application to amend preliminary decree to incorporate interest portion of judgment of trial Court — It is not amendment to be carried out under O. 6, R. 17 — Mistake can be rectified u/S. 152.

Appointment of local commissioner — Suit for partition of agricultural land and for permanent injunction — Evidence was yet to be adduced by plaintiff and issues were yet to be framed — Dismissal of application of defendant for appointment of commissioner for local inspection — Not erroneous.Alleged encroachment of suit land of appellant Board — Respondents’ land adjacent to suit land — Application for demarcation by appellant before trial Court, was rejected — Application for appointment of Local Commissioner for demarcation of suit land filed by appellant before Appellate Court was also rejected — High Court did not consider whether Local Commissioner should be appointed for purpose of demarcation — Summarily dismissed second appeal on basis of concurrent findings of fact that Board failed to prove encroachment by respondents — Order of High Court liable to be set aside. R. S. A. No. 3374 of 2003, D/- 16-1-2007 (Punj. and Har.) - Reversed.Local Commissioner — Can be appointed even at appellate stage — Boundary disputes — Encroachment — Earlier demarcation not carried out in accordance with law — Application seeking appointment of local Commissioner to demarcate land in question to ascertain encroachment — Rejected on technical ground, not proper — Appellate Court directed to appoint local Commissioner and accordingly decide issue of encroachment.Local investigation — Advocate commission appointed by Court to inspect property — Duty of Commissioner is not to collect evidence, which is in nature of oral testimony of parties — But to graphically elucidate matter, which is local in character.Commission to make local investigation — Commissioner appointed by Court has got no power to delegate said work to any other person — Fact that delegate is an expert in field — Is no ground to accept his report.Appointment of Commissioner for local inspetion — Report submitted by Commissioner — Found dissatisfactory by Court — Court should direct further enquiry and call for supplementary report from same Commissioner — R. 10 does not authorize Court to set aside Commissioner’s report if it was found to be deficient and did not answer point in controversy.Commissioner cannot be appointed to find out as to who is in possession of property — But he can be appointed to make local investigation to ascertain facts or other materials which are found in property and to make a report in regard to that matter to Court.Appointment of second Commissioner — Permissibility — Application for appointment of second Commissioner on ground that first Commissioner while preparing report relied upon sketch which was suspended by High Court — Held, proper course with petitioner is to request trial Court to direct first Commissioner himself to make a local inspection again or to convince trial Court about unacceptability of first report and seek appointment of second Commissioner

Appointment of Commissioner — Plaintiff seeking injunction against defendants from disturbing plaintiffs running vegetable market — Defendants denied existence of such market — Application filed by plaintiffs for appointment of an advocate-Commissioner — Commissioner can be appointed for purpose of ascertaining state of things that may be asserted and denied by rival parties — Rejection of application by trial Court on ground that plaintiffs could not seek to fish out evidence or establish a state of things — Improper.

Dishonour of cheque — Complaint — Limitation for filing — Payee not filing complaint after service of first notice of demand on drawer — Cannot issue second notice of demand to drawer and file complaint thereafter.

Adverse possession — Is a question of fact which has to be specifically pleaded and proved — plaintiff neither asserted plea of adverse possession nor any issue was framed by trial Court in this regard — None of the parties lead any evidence on point — Held, appellate Court by erroneously making out an altogether new case which was not pleaded set aside judgment passed by trial Court and decreed suit filed by plaintiff.Effect of non-registration — Agreement of sale written on plain paper and not registered — Would not confer any right, title or interest to transferee — Transferee acquiring possession of suit shop in part performance of agreement — Transferee at the most can avail benefit of S. 53-A of T. P. Act only as shield and not as sword. Transfer of Property Plea of limitation — Defence that suit was barred by time — Set up in Written Statement — No specific issue framed — Trial Court coming to finding that suit was barred by time — First Appellate Court and also High Court not going into said question nor deciding it before reversing judgment of Trial Court — Plea of limitation before Supreme Court under Art. 136

Will - Proof of - Grant of Probate - No issue regarding validity of Will - One witness examined - Not supporting claim on due execution and attestation - None signed in his presence. Held that Will was not established. High Court's order upheld.When a co-sharer sells his share in the joint holding he transfers his right as a co-sharer in the said land and the right to remain in its exclusive possession till the joint holding is partitioned amongst all co-sharers.Rights and liabilities of co-sharers - Principles governing. Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.Plea of demanding specific performance is available only to vendor /defendant and is personal to him, and subsequent purchasers have no right - The plea that plaintiff must be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract must be available only to the vendor or his legal representatives but not to subsequent purchasers - SLP dismissed.Limitation begins to run from the date the parties have stipulated for performance of the contract and suit is to be filed within 3 years from date so stipulated - Application for amendment changed the cause of action as the cause of action was to be stated initially in plaint but was not pleaded.Suit for specific performance - Respondent had instituted a suit for perpetual injunction and by an application under O.6, R.17 CPC, the respondent got the suit converted into one for specific performance by order dated 25.8.1989 - Limitation had started from April 6, 1986 - Held that suit filed after 3 years was clearly barred by limitationSpecific performance of contarct for sale - Under the agreement, date fixed by reference to the occurrence of certain event i.e. the redemption of the mortgage - Requirement of Article 113 - Actual day need not be mentioned on the deed, but the basis of the calculation which was to make it certain should be found therein.Suit filed after expiry of 3 years from the date of knowledge of denial is hopelessly barred by limitation under Article 54 - Mere issue of notice in 1972 does not stop running of limitation once it has began to run - High Court justified in dismissing suit.Suit for Specific performance of contract - Limitation -- Appellant entering into an agreement for sale of his land to respondent in October 1982 - Respondent upon paying certain amount as earnest money put in physical possession of the land -Sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered upon disposal of an appeal pending in High Court - As per the sale agreement respondent was to repay an amount of Rs. 42,000 to a bank being the loan taken by the appellant from the bank - Bank having filed a suit for recovery appellant issuing notice to respondent on 24-4-1984 directing him to pay the loan amount to the bank and get the sale deed executed within 15 days failing which the agreement shall stand cancelled - Respondent depositing an amount of only Rs. 10,000 in the bank on 25-5-1985 - On 26-9-1989 respondent filing a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale - Trial court decreeing the suit - Lower appellate court however holding the suit to be barred by limitation - On further appeal High Court holding that since time was not the essence of the contract the suit was not barred and accordingly remitting the matter to the lower appellate court - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that since the suit was not filed within three years from the date of expiry of the period of fifteen days specified in the notice dated 24-4-1984 it was barred by limitation.Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale - Suit filed almost 29 years after the sale agreement - Defendant disputing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court and also taking the stand that the suit was barred by limitation - Trial court holding that it had jurisdiction to try the suit and dismissing the suit as being barred by limitation - Lower appellate court as well as High Court affirming the decision and dismissing the appeal - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that the trial court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. Applicability of Section 46 of the Contract Act and several other pleas available to the defendants which were required to be considered, cannot enable the dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation. Matter accordingly remitted to trial court for fresh consideration of all the issues.Agreement for sale of property - Form of contract and execution of deeds - Performance of contract - Limitation for raising the plea of specific performance - Private limited company (company) owning certain property entering into an agreement with first respondent for sale - Agreement for sale dated 18.4.1971 -Company receiving advance amount for sale - In May 1971 company filing a suit against some persons claiming ownership over the property and obtaining a consent decree on 3.5.1978 - Thereafter first respondent writing letters on 12-11-1979, 11.1.1980, 5.1.1981 and 8.10.1984 asking the company to execute and register the sale deed - Company also assuring the first respondent that it would do the needful - However on 21.8.1985 company refusing to execute and register the deed on the plea that the same became barred by limitation - First respondent filing suit for specific performance in 1985 - During pendency of the suit company selling the property to appellant - Appellant contesting the suit and disputing its maintainability - Trial court decreeing the suit - Appeals there against dismissed by the lower appellate court as well as High Court. Dismissing further appeal held that since the period of limitation got extended by conduct of the parties the suit was not barred. Execution of the agreement by the company in favour of the first respondent had not been denied at any stage. Even in the absence of any resolution on the part of the company or official seal of the company in the agreement the contract could not be held to be invalid or illegal. Decretal of the suit for specific performance consequently upheld.Agreement to sell - Whether time is es sence of contract? - Held that there is a presumption against time being essence of the contract - To make time the essence of the contract, intention must be expressed in unequivocal language.Return of plaint — For want of notice — Permission under S. 80(2) for exemption from service of advance notice to defendants granted by Court — Case cannot be reopened for compliance of S. 80(1) of Code — Order returning plaint for compliance of S. 80(1) liable to be set aside.

Rejection of plaint — Suit for redemption of mortgage — No categorical statement in plaint that there was any transaction of mortgage between parties — No cause of action had been set out in plaint — Plaint liable to be rejected.Rejection of plaint — Relevant consideration — Averments in plaint are relevant for deciding application for rejection of plaint and for that purpose plaint has to be read as a whole — Averments in written statement are wholly irrelevant for deciding application for rejection of plaint.Rejection of plaint — On ground that second suit was filed without obtaining leave under O. 2, R. 2 — Second suit was filed for specific performance of agreement — First suit was filed for injunction — Cause of action was substantively same in both suits as both suits were based on agreement executed between plaintiff and defendants — Plaintiff omitted prayer for specific performance in first suit — Second suit was required to be filed after obtaining leave under O. 2, R. 2 — Suit was filed without obtaining leave under O. 2, R. 2 — Rejection of plaint proper.Rejection of plaint — Application for — At time of deciding application under O. 7, R. 11(d) only statement of plaint is required to be seen — No assertion in plaint that suit was barred by any law — Petitioner was raising voice with regard to maintainability of suit — Refusal to reject plaint, not improper.Rejection of plaint — Suit for specific performance of contract — Case of defendants that Memorandum of Understanding entered into between parties is void and illegal — Civil court is entitled to take cognizance of every dispute of civil nature unless law prohibits it either expressly or impliedly from entertaining the dispute — Party seeking rejection of plaint under O. 7, R. 11 must show provision of law prohibiting civil court from entertaining the dispute or that an alternate forum or remedy is provided — Failure to show any such provision of law — Rejection of plaint not proper.

Eviction decree on basis of Compromise — Enforcement — Eviction sought on ground of reasonable and bona fide need — Compromise between parties whereunder tenant agreed to vacate premises within stipulated date — Inference can be drawn that tenant admitted existence of grounds of eviction — Tenant not handing over possession after stipulated date — tribunal is not precluded from applying principles underlying provisions of CPC for finding out truth — If there is difference between the parties on material question of law and facts, then, in civil proceedings for just decision of matter, it is always advisable to frame issues/points of determination.

S. 138 Dishonour of cheque — Registration of complaint under S. 138 — Duty of trial Court — Court should carry out proper verification before issuing summons in a criminal case under S. 138 — Following verification required while registering complaint under S. 138 stated.Dishonour of cheque — Offences by companies — Petitioner, Additional Director of accused-company resigned before cheque in question was dishonoured — No specific averments in complaint as to how and in what manner petitioner was responsible for conduct of the business of company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning — Complaint against petitioner quashed.Court-fee — Suit for declaration that sale deed executed by plaintiff—™s father is null and void and for joint possession — Is not a suit for cancellation of sale deed — Court-fee need not be paid on sale consideration mentioned in sale deeds — Court-fee payable is computable under Section 7(iv)(c). Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 34.Amendment of plaint — Delay — Not by itself sufficient ground to reject amendment — Court has to see whether by allowing belated amendment, real controversy between parties may be resolved — Whether opposite party can be compensated by cost or otherwise.Registered document — Has lot of sanctity attached to it — Sanctity cannot be allowed to be lost without following proper procedure — Registered power of attorney — Mere filing of criminal complaint against power of attorney-holder — Not sufficient to revoke power of attorney.Suit for declaration of sale deed as void ab initio — No relief claimed that sale deed in question be cancelled or avoided — Plaintiff not bound to pay ad valorem court-fees — Payment of fixed declaratory court-fees would be sufficient. 1975 Pat LJR 349 and 2006 (4) Pat LJR 443, Rel. on. Unregistered Sale Deed — Admissible in evidence as evidence of contract in suit for specific performance of contract — Also admissible as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered document. Specific Relief Act

Registration of sale agreement — Whether mandatory for seeking injunction — Applicant sought injunction on ground that he had purchased suit property and paid part consideration — Unregistered sale deed showing delivery of possession to applicant on payment of 85% sale consideration — Reliability — Had the applicant sought benefit of part performance under S. 53-A of T. P. Act registration of sale deed would have been mandatory — Since no such benefit is claimed, unregistered sale deed can be relied upon by Court in an injunction application.Instrument not duly stamped — Admissibility — Old unregistered sale deed not accepted by trial Court as evidence for want of registration and payment of stamp duty and penalty — Decision of trial Court upheld being as per S. 35 of Stamp Act.Documentary evidence — Admissibility — Objection relating to deficiency of stamp duty — Must be taken when document is tendered in evidence — Such objection must be judicially determined before document is marked as exhibit.Registration of sale deed — Validity — Suit for specific performance on basis of unregistered sale deed was pending before Civil Court — Jurisdiction of Civil Court is plenary in nature and, therefore, all questions in respect of execution of documents and receipt of sale consideration or execution of agreement are issues, which are required to be examined in civil suit — Invocation of jurisdiction of Registrar under S. 73 of Act would be abuse of process of law — Therefore, order passed by Registrar directing registration of sale deed during pendency of matter before Civil Court would be improper.

Suit for declaration and partition - Petitioner along with his brother inherited suit property from his deceased father - Mutation of land was recorded in favour of his brother only - Evidence on record so also in Panchayat election list name of petitioner was shown as son of his father - Mutation attested in favour of his brother cannot deprive petitioner of his right - Finding that petitioner was son of his father and thus entitled to one half share from land in dispute - Is proper.Agreement to sell — Specific performance — Mere fact that there is stipulation in agreement that in event of default of defendant, plaintiff would be entitled to refund of amount — By itself would not disentitle plaintiff to decree for specific performance. AIR 2000 SC 2408, AIR 2000 SC 191, AIR 1999 SC 2309 and AIR 1994 Raj 259, Rel. on. Suit for recovery of possession by person wrongfully dispossessed — Limitation — Is to be computed from date of actual dispossession and not from date of knowledge of dispossession — Finding recorded by trial Court by considering date of knowledge as date of dispossession and decree of restoration passed — Improper and liable to be set aside.

Agreement of sale — Payment of entire consideration and possession also delivered — Execution of sale deed but failure to get it registered — Suit for specific performance on basis of executed agreement — Maintainable. Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), Ss. 53A and 55(1)(d). Registration Act (16 of 1908), S. 59.Readiness and willingness — Purchaser discharging all obligation under agreement — Failure only on part of vendor to get sale deed registered — Lack of proper pleadings regarding readiness and willingness, held on facts should not be a ground for denial of relief of specific performanceAgreement to sell — Suit for specific performance — Readiness and willingness — Plaintiff vendee not pleading that he was ready and willing to pay balance amount or that he made any effort to pay the same — Not entitled to relief of specific performance. (B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 16 (c) — Agreement to sell — Suit for specific performance — Subsequent purchaser of property who were defendant in suit — Entitled to raise plea that plaintiff (prior purchaser) was never ready and willing to perform his part of contract. AIR 2000 SC 860, Rel. on.Under-valued instruments — Reference under S. 47-A to Collector — When can be made — Document when presented should be registered first by Sub-Registrar and then reference can be made to Collector if he deems fit and proper.Chargeability of instrument with duty — Determination by Collector — Is revisable — Issuance of certificate by endorsement by Collector under S. 32(3) — Does not take away right of revision in terms of S. 56(4) — Only revisional order would be final and not the order of original authority — S. 53A (as amended by Bombay Stamp Act) would be of no assistance.Impounding of insufficiently stamped document — Insufficiently stamped document if admitted in evidence, S. 36 gets attracted and Court is prohibited from re-opening matter — The question of judicial determination of matter arises when objection is taken when document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case.

Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act (7 of 1952), S. 47A(1) (as inserted by Raj. Act 10 of 1982) — Stamp duty — Assessment — Relevant date for determining market value — Stamp duty on sale deed — Current market value at time of execution has to be seen — Fact that purchaser had to litigate for getting sale deed executed — Immaterial. Original Instrument bearing stamp of sufficient amount but of improper description — Copy of such instrument — Neither can be validated by impounding nor can be admitted as secondary evidence — S. 37 applies to document and not copy of document.Impounding of document — Letter containing terms and conditions of agreement to sell immovable property — Nothing to show that rights and interest in property were actually created by oral agreement and letter only incorporated its terms — Letter in question is instrument u/S. 2(14) — Liable to be impounded for non-payment of stamp duty. Presumption as to document 30 years old — Sale deed — Date of execution of document was mentioned as Paushsudi Ekam Samvat 1890 — Document revealed name of seller and purchaser and consideration was also mentioned in it — Names of witnesses were also mentioned and also as to by whom it was written — Possession and ownership of grandfather of defendant on basis of said document can be said to have been proved. 1957 Raj LW 267, Rel. on.Suit for specific performance — Necessary parties — Are one who are parties to contract, their legal representative or person who had purchased contracted property from vendor with or without notice — Any person claiming independent right in property in question, including co-owner or coparcener is not a necessary party to suit for specific performance. 1995 AIR SCW 1782 and AIR 2005 SC 2813, Rel. on.Suit for specific performance — Necessary parties — Are one who are parties to contract, their legal representative or person who had purchased contracted property from vendor with or without notice — Any person claiming independent right in property in question, including co-owner or coparcener is not a necessary party to suit for specific performance. 1995 AIR SCW 1782 and AIR 2005 SC 2813, Rel. on.Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Alternative relief of refund of earnest money — Grant of — Suit property purchased by bona fide purchaser during pendency of suit having no knowledge of prior agreement — Lapse of 19 years — Held, after lapse of so many years property which was sold to bona fide purchaser cannot be ordered to be re-sold to plaintiff prior purchaser — Relief of return of earnest money granted.Relief of specific performance of contract — Entitlement to — Suit filed by prior purchaser — Subsequent purchaser did not have knowledge of agreement between prior purchaser and vendor — Property was already in possession of subsequent purchaser — Hence, prior purchaser would not be entitled to specific performance of contract, in spite of his willingness to perform his part of contract.Suit for specific performance — Impleadment of third party — Third party had semblance of title and interest over property in question by virtue of agreement — Third party can be impleaded in suit as one of the defendants. AIR 2007 SC 3166, Rel. on.Specific performance — Suit for — Agreement for sale between plaintiff and defendants owners — Defendants subsequently sold suit property in favour of appellants — Impleadment of appellants who are subsequent purchasers — Restriction however placed on appellants that they cannot raise plea of readiness and willingness — Proper — Only issue that can be adjudicated in suit is whether appellants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice 2000 AIR SCW 442, Disting.Sale deed — Cancellation — Deed executed when transferor was suffering from alcoholic Psychosis — Fact of his mental illness proved by medical certificate — Deed in question also showing that valuable land was sold at very paltry amount — Sale being by person who was not of sound mind — Liable to be set aside — Unsoundness of mind of transferor — Is finding of fact — No interference permissible in second appeal. 2001 (3) Ker LT 580, Reversed.Temporary injunction — Refusal — Validity — Suit for cancellation of sale deeds — Purchaser under sale deed in question was close relative and adopted son of seller, his right to sell his property was not in dispute — Purchaser had sufficient funds to purchase said agricultural land in question and adoption prima facie appeared to be genuine — Plaintiffs did not have a prima facie case in their favour for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendants from further alienating property or to direct status quo of suit property to be maintained — Validity of sale deed in question will be determined on basis of further evidence — Refusal to grant temporary injunction, proper.

Suit for permanent injunction — Directing defendants to demolish construction made on encroached land and handover vacant possession — Suit allowed on basis of entries in Revenue records — Decree for permanent injunction in mandatory form passed without deciding title of plaintiff — Is improper. Rajasthan Tenancy Act (3 of 1955), S. 15 — Cancellation of mutation entry — Delay in making reference to Board of Revenue — Effect — If a person has acquired tenancy/khatedari rights and continued to remain in possession of land for number of years — His rights cannot be cancelled after unreasonable delay in a reference proceedings. 2005 AIHC 3906 (Raj), Rel. on.Specific performance — Suit for — Agreement to sell — Defence that time was essence of contract and plaintiff failed to pay within time — Agreement though specified time for execution of sale deed — Stipulation for forfeiture of earnest money in event of failure to execute sale deed also made — Indicates that time was never intended by parties to be of essence — Defendant could not substantiate plea that time was essence of contract and that it was plaintiffs who avoided to perform their part — Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to decree. 1997 AIR SCW 956, Disting. (2004) 8 SCC 689, 1993 AIR SCW 1371, Relied on.

Khatedari rights — Claim for — Possession of plaintiff tenants on land in dispute on date of commencement of Tenancy Act not proved by any cogent evidence — Mere payment of land revenue would not itself prove khatedari rights of plaintiffs over concerned land. Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs ActRajasthan Land Revenue Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Construction of Cinemas, Hotels and Establishment of Petrol Pumps Rules (1978), R. 7 — Application for allotment of land — Scrutiny and enquiry of applications — R. 7(1) gives discretion to Collector to send application for advice of Chief town Planner — Word ‘enquiry’ denotes that in scrutinising application, Collector would collect all information about land in question and invite objections from inhabitants residing in village where land was situated —Order of Collector on its face showing that there has not been judicial exercise of discretion and objections from inhabitants were not invited — Collector has not assigned any reason as to why application was not sent to Chief Town Planner for his advice — Order of allotment set aside.Allotment of agricultural land to landless person - Subsequent cancellation - Ground that petitioner was not a landless person at time of allotment as he held a notional share in ancestral agricultural land of his father - Finding recorded by Additional Collector that petitioner was not a landless person was based on misconstruction and misapplication of relevant law on subject - He based his findings on circular of revenue department but completely ignored schedule appended to Rules of 1955 which was then available on statute book - Order cancelling allotment - Constituted error apparent on face of record -Liable to be set asideRajasthan Tenancy Act (3 of 1955), S. 15 — Khatedari rights — Claim for — Petitioner has not proved that he was in possession over disputed land prior to Samvat 2012, period corresponding to commencement of Rajasthan Tenancy Act — Plaintiff could not be recorded as Khatedar in absence of either any allotment letter in his favour or an order of regularisation based on prolonged possession by competent officer — Plaintiff cannot be allowed to take advantage of wrong entries made in his favour — Mutation in name of plaintiff liable to be cancelled. 1987 RRD 2002, Disting.Reference to Collector — Validity — Land in dispute held to be Abadi land in earlier proceedings — Said decision having attained finality would be binding — State being party to said decision it would not open for State to question nature of land or vesting of title in original title holder — Reference proceedings initiated u/S. 82 questioning nature of land, improper.Allotment of land — To be made in consultation with Advisory committee — Specific quorum of Advisory Committee provided in Rules of 1970 — Then contrary to said rule no quorum can be permitted by administrative order — S. 13(3A) specifically provided that quorum for constituting meeting of Advisory Committee shall be of three members of whom one should be from Member of Legislative Assembly, Pradhan or the Sarpanch — However none of them were members of Advisory Committee and therefore allotment so made would be illegal.Termination of rights and resumption of land — Power as to — Exercised on ground that land was used for non-agricultural purposes and that it was sought to be transferred by holder for non-agricultural purposes — Not improper but within scope of S. 90-B.Mutation — Land in question was entered in name of Deity — Deity is a perpetual minor and rights of deity are to be protected by Courts — Sale of land belonging to deity is void ab initio and no power is vested in purchaser.Finding of fact — Correction of revenue entries — Question as regards to total area of land of a particular khasra number is pure question of fact — Concurrent finding of fact by Revenue Appellate Authority as well as Revenue Board — Cannot be interfered with under writ jurisdiction.Revision — Delay in filing — Revision Petition Challenging order of cancellation of allotment after delay of 13 years whereas only 60 days is provided under the Rules of 1975 to challenge the said order — Revision held barred by laches.aipur Development Authority (Jaipur Region), Building Bye-laws (2000) Bye-law 19.8 — Floor area ratio — Fixation, of — Auction of property — Sale deed stipulating that floor area ratio was 1.0 in terms of bye-laws then existing — Sale deed further providing that buyer gets additional floor area ratio consequent upon any changes in bye-laws — New Bye-laws of 2000 increasing floor area ratio but specifically providing that increase in floor ratio would not apply to plots sold in auction — Effect of such bye-law cannot be ignored — Plea of estoppel cannot be invoked in such case. Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 115. D. B. Civil Spl. Appeal No. 10 of 2005, D/- 2-3-2006 (Raj), Reversed.Modification in Master plan — Notification permitting land use from ecological to residential — Validity — Decision taken in interest of city of Jaipur, growing pressure on land for housing and considering fact that all land was private Khatedari land and was in close vicinity of Jaipur City — Therefore, in order to prevent unplanned housing, JDA allowed housing development on that land — It cannot be said that change of land use was contrary to Secs. 25(1) and 25 (2a) of JDA Act.Closure of public road for development activity — It is necessary to obtain permission of Jaipur Traffic Control Board before digging and closing road — Armed with building permission respondent builder could not have taken upon itself power and authority to close public road — It amount to usurpation of authority by private person — Action of digging/closing of public road without necessary permission held illegal.Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban) Rules (1974), R. 15 — Allotment of land to Indian Oil Corporation for setting up retail outlets — Arbitrariness — Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) is public-sector Undertaking fully owned by Government of India — It is discharging functions of distribution and supply of petrol and other petroleum products thereby serving public demands as per policy laid down by Government which is in furtherance of interest and welfare of public — I.O.C. not required to have permission or licence to set up retail outlets — I.O.C. had allotted ‘A’ sites for setting up retail outlets to physically handicapped candidates and one such site was being run by itself — Action of J.D.A. in deciding to allot these sites to I.O.C. not arbitrary or unreasonable.Power of revocation and modification of permission to development — Competent authority — Permission to development granted by one Commissioner — Cannot be revoked or modified by another Commissioner — Only “Authority” as specified in S.30 could exercise such power — Power given to ‘Authority’ u/S. 30 could not be exercised by Commissioner.Auction of plot — Auction held in violation of interim order directing to maintain status quo by High Court — Subsequent dismissal of writ petition — JDA would be bound by terms and conditions of auction — It can only be cancelled by a declaration made by Civil Court — JDA cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong and allowed to make party suffer which had complied with all terms and conditions of auction and had further invested huge amount — Reallowing JDA to reauction land would put premium on wrong cancellation of registry by JDA.Cancellation of sale deed — Party to registry of sale/lease deed has no right to cancel same and normal course open is to file civil suit for cancellation — In case sale is effected in violation of some statutory mandatory provision of law, consequence given in statute will be taken into consideration — Even then show cause notice is necessary as sale stands complete as soon as the auction is knocked down in favour of party.Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules (1974), Rr. 15, 15-B — Settlement of land — By negotiation through single window clearance system without any advertisement of same for auction — Not improper — Provisions of law pertaining to the JDA Act and Rules of 1974 were fully observed — Decision was taken on basis of recommendation of Board of Infrastructure Development and Investment Promotion (BIDI) which was highest policy-making body of State — No interference.Effect of non-registration - Agreement of sale written on plain paper and not registered - Would not confer any right, title or interest to transferee - Transferee acquiring possession of suit shop in part performance of agreement - Transferee at the most can avail benefit of S. 53-A of T. P. Act only as shield and not as sword. Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), S. 53-A.Cancellation of registered Sale Deed — Inherent power of registering authority — Fraudulent transfer of property — Sale takes place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee — Is void — True owner can nullify sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court — Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered — Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Ss. 31, 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. General Clauses Act

Effect of non-registration — Affidavit (relinquishment document) only conveying intention of members of family to relinquish their rights in favour of their mother — It was not document which by itself extinguished or created any rights — Non-registration of document would be of no consequence.Withholding of Registration of document — Not permissible on instructions of Collector-cum-Addl. Secretary (Revenue) — Reason being, powers of Registering authority is circumscribed by Act to factum of execution and identity of person executing document — Collector has no appellate or revisional powers over Registering Authority under Act — Executive instructions cannot override express provisions of statute.

Sale deed — Endorsement by Sub-Registrar about registration — Presumption as to execution of deed and payment of sale consideration — Rebuttal — Executant lady was illiterate woman who could not read or write — She was issueless widow who observed parda all along while appearing before public authorities etc. — She treated defendant as her son and reposed full confidence in him — Evidence showing lump sum papers were put up before lady for obtaining her signatures and thumb impressions by defendant while she was sitting in rickshaw covered from all sides — Immediately thereafter she went back on pre-arranged taxi for her abode — All these circumstances speak against defendant and presumption in question was held to be rebutted by strong evidence.Registration of document — Proof of due execution of document — Execution of document is not mere signing it — But, signing by way of assent to terms of contract embodied in document — Mere proof or admission that person’s signature appears on document cannot by itself amount to execution of document — Registration does not dispense with necessity of proof of execution when the same is denied.

Document would be a conveyance when it is executed as sale and intention of party is to transfer right, title and interest in property — Sellers did not append their signature on disputed sale deed — Document remained incomplete — Will not be covered by definition of —کconveyance—™ —

Registration of document — Proceedings before Registrar are of quasi judicial nature — Signature on document alleged to have been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence and mistake by executant — Registering Authority has no jurisdiction to go into these questions — Aforesaid questions have to be gone into by competent Civil Court — Person who is aggrieved by finding of Registrar can challenge sale deed under S. 31 of Specific Relief Act, in competent civil Court — Civil Court shall go into issue regarding due execution independently, on basis of evidence adduced before it , without in any way being influenced by finding of Registrar.Suit for registration of sale deed — Suit in substance was for direction to defendant vendor to execute and register sale deed, since vendor had already received the entire sale consideration — Such suit would be maintainable under S. 77 of Act.Unregistered contract of sale — Suit for mandatory injunction seeking direction for registration of document — Not main-tainable — Moving application u/S. 73 of Registration Act is condition precedent for institution of such suit.

Document not duly stamped — Admitted in evidence without any objection being raised — Court is not obliged to act upon or enforce it for all purposes thereafter, without requirement of payment of duty and penalty — Court cannot direct execution of a sale deed in specific, performance of an agreement of sale, when agreement is not duly stamped.Admission of document in evidence — Suit for permanent injunction based on allegations of infringement of trade mark — Photo copies of registration certificates of trade mark produced by plaintiff before Court — Endorsement of photo copies by Court and marking them as exhibits subject to objection as to its proof and admissibility — Is erroneous, being contrary to procedure prescribed by O. 13, R. 4. Trade and Merchandise Marks Act (43 of 1958), S. 36.Temporary injunction — Entitlement to — Plaintiff was owner of property by virtue of registered sale deed executed in his favour — Revenue records showed possession of plaintiff and attempts made by defendant to get revenue entries changed failed — Defendant claimed agreement to sell in his favour — Agreement not registered — Thus possession claimed on basis of part performance of agreement to sell, could not be read in evidence for want of registration — Plaintiff held entitled to grant of temporary injunction restraining defendant from interfering with his possession.Oral agreements — Evidence relating to — Admissibility — Agreement to sale — Terms of agreement having been written and registered under Registration Act — Subsequent oral agreements in this respect would be barred under S. 92 of Evidence Act — No evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted.Registered document — Has lot of sanctity attached to it — Sanctity cannot be allowed to be lost without following proper procedure — Registered power of attorney — Mere filing of criminal complaint against power of attorney-holder — Not sufficient to revoke power of attorney.Estoppel — Revenue proceedings for mutation — Sister—™s statement before revenue authorities relinquishing her rights in favour of her brother — Mutation entry recording name of brother as exclusive owner, held binding on sister — She is estopped from contending contrary to her statement — Plea that there was no waiver, the relinquishment being not in writing and not registered — Not tenable — Sister cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own wrongs — Even if such statement is treated as family arrangement such statement is still binding as family arrangement may be oral and in each case registration is not necessary. AIR 1976 SC 807, Rel. on. Registration Act (16 of 1908), S. 17. Hindu LawDocument not compulsorily registrable — Agreement to sell — No stipulation in agreement indicating that possession of land was handed over to plaintiff vendee — S. 53A of T.P. Act would not apply to such situation — Document not required to be compulsorily registered.

Impleadment of party — Transferee pending suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Transfer made by transferees from defendant without leave of Court — Cannot claim impleadment in view of doctrine of lis pendens — Order impleading them on ground that there was nobody to represent and safeguard their interest — Liable to be set aside.Rejection of plaint — Suit for partition — Plaintiffs claiming to be sons of defendant through his first wife demanded share in suit properties — Plea by defendant that plaintiffs are not his children and even if they are illegitimate children, they have no right over suit properties — Not a sufficient ground to reject plaint — Averments in plaint disclosed cause of action — No material to invoke O. 7, R. 11 — Application for rejection of plaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. AIR 1997 Kant 77, Approved. 2005 (2) Mad LW 487, Foll.Rejection of Plaint — Ground that plaintiff has got no legal and constitutional right of preemption claimed in plaint — Same cannot be considered while dealing with plaint under O. 7, R. 11 — Court has only to see whe-ther plaint discloses cause of action — Rejection of plaint — Not proper.

Rejection of plaint – Application for – At stage of O. 7, R. 11 defence case is not to be considered – If defendant raises any contentious issue or dispute regarding maintainability of suit – Opportunity should be given to parties to lead defence after framing of issues – Summary rejection of plaint, improper.Rejection of plaint - Agreement between appellant and respondent association - Appellant agreed to build and develop property, owned by ~4~ Appellant was to call upon the respondent by notice, to register a lease deed in respect of property, except the ground and first floor - Respondent accordingly called upon but no lease executed - Building completed in 1984 - Letter written on 4.11.84 - Suit for various reliefs filed in July 1990 - Phrase, 'barred by law' - If does not include operation of Limitation Act, 1963 - Receiver found that respondent had executed lease deeds on 3.4.88, 16.7.88 and 19.4.99 - Various claims made. Held that statement in plaint does not show if it is barred by law.

When limitation is the pure question of law and from the pleadings itself it becomes apparent that a suit is barred by limitation, then, of course, is the duty of the court to decide limitation at the outset even in the absence of a plea. However, in cases where the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the suit does not appear to be barred by limitation on the face of it, then the facts necessary to prove limitation must be pleaded, an issue raised and then proved.An application for rejection of the plaint can be filed if the allegations made in the plaint even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety appear to be barred by any law. The question as to whether a suit is barred by limitation or not would, therefore, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. For the said purpose, only the averments made in the plaint are relevant. At this stage, the court would not be entitled to consider the case of the defence.Specific performance of - Respondent entered into agreement both on behalf of himself and his sister in respect of property jointly held by them in half share - Sister refused to accept the agreement - Held that the agreement can be enforced against the respondent in respect of his share of the property - Section 12 not attracted as the case not related to part of the contract but whole of the contract so far as the respondent was concerned.Agreement to sell house property - Agreement by vendor (husband) - Representation that he was absolute owner on partition among brothers and had no male child and that none else has any right over property - Vendee not having any knowledge that vendor's wife was owner to the extent of half share, which devolved upon her due to death of her son - If agreement can be enforced against vendor to the extent of half share. Held that the agreement does not fall under sub-section (2), (3) or (4) of Section 12 of Specific Relief Act, but it can be enforced in part i.e. to the extent of half share.Doctrine of lis pendens — Applicability — Suit seeking declaration of Khatedari rights — Suit property transferred to third party during pendency of suit despite fact that alienation was prohibited — Such transfer would be hit by doctrine of lis pendens — Subsequent transferees cannot be impleaded in suit.

Substituted service — Directions for, issued without recording satisfaction that defendants cannot be served personally — No efforts made to get defendants served personally in ordinary way — Service of summons cannot be considered to be sufficient and in accordance with law.Presumption of service – Summons sent by registered post on correct address with acknowledgment due – Addressee avoided services and did not accept summons even after having knowledge and information from postman – Addressee would be deemed to have been served and presumption of service in law can be made.Presumption of service of summons — When not available — Despite orders of Court to effect substituted service, summons were not served by affixture — Instead copy of summons was served on brother of defendant — Such service would not only be irregular but illegal, void and contrary to directions of Court — There would be no presumption of service — Ex parte decree liable to be set aside.Notice sent by registered post — Presumption of service — Notice sent at correct address of place where petitioner was working viz. State Bank of India — Endorsement of refusal by Postman in respect of said notice not rebutted by petitioner — Presumption of due service can be raised. Evidence Act

Admissibility of unstamped document — Objection not raised earlier when document was admitted in evidence — Admissibility cannot be questioned at subsequent stage — Provisions of S. 61 cannot be invoked before trial Court by raising an objection after document is admitted in evidence but S. 61 of Act is applicable at appellate stage.Unstamped document — Admissibility in evidence — Suit for recovery of mortgage money — Document sought to be produced to prove transaction should be compulsorily stamped — Even if document is used for collateral purpose or otherwise — It does not escape stamp duty u/S. 34 of Act. Secondary evidence — Copy of document insufficiently stamped — Cannot be permitted to be led in suit even though objection of its admissibility was not taken under Evidence Act — Party can only be allowed to rely on document which is an instrument for purpose of S. 35 of Stamp Act and S. 36 does not apply to secondary evidence adduced in Court, contents of document unstamped or insufficiently stamped.

Presumption as to document thirty years old - Presumption can be raised at any stage including appellate stage - However belated claim of presumption would not by itself confer any right on other party to claim opportunity to lead evidence in rubuttal.Non-Registration of sale deed – Effect – Fully proved that land in question was sold to respondents for Rs. 1025 and possession was handed over to them - Only on basis that document is not registered, cannot be said that land is not sold to respondents & respondents are only trespassers.Certified copy of sale deed — Refusal to admit — Validity — Original sale deed was lying in another suit pending in same Court — Sale deed being not a public document, only remedy available with plaintiff was to summon file of civil original suit in which original sale deed was filed.Objection as to admissibility of document — Required to be decided forthwith and immediately — Postponing decision on such objection would be contrary to object with which CPC was amended in year 2002, namely, to expedite trial — Consequently postponing decision on objection as to admissibility of evidence until final arguments on suit held erroneous.Document not compulsorily registrable — Agreement to sell — No stipulation in agreement indicating that possession of land was handed over to plaintiff vendee — S. 53A of T.P. Act would not apply to such situation — Document not required to be compulsorily registered.Insufficient stamp duty — Suit for permanent injunction — Deed of declaration marked on plaintiff’s side — Said deed is unilateral document relating to certain rights — Does not require stamp duty — Document marked without paying adequate stamp duty — Not improper. AIR 2001 SC 1158, (2001) 1 MLJ 1, Relied on.

Temporary injunction — Grant of — For purpose of forming opinion upon prima facie case, Court is required to apply its mind to pleadings of plaint as well as reply, if filed in suit or to application filed under O. 39, Rules 1 and 2 — Court is not required to give finding upon disputed question.

Interim injunction — One who seeks equitable relief under O. 39, Rule 6, is also required to come with clean hands and not suppress material facts — Plaintiff found to be guilty of suppressio veri suggestio falsi for having concealed material information from scrutiny of Court — Refusal to grant injunction — ProperRevocation of licence by owner - Licensee not being in “possession” no question of dispossession - Injunction against owner - Cannot be granted on ground of apprehension of “dispossession” without due process of law.Estoppel — Contract of life insurance — Person making a wrong statement with knowledge of consequence therefor — Estopped from pleading that even if such a fact had been disclosed, it would not have made any material change. Insurance Act (4 of 1938), Pre.S. 145 deals with de facto possession and not dejure possession — No oral or documentary evidence to determine actual physical possession of petitioner — Possession was with other party — Merely because of pendency of mutation proceeding it could not be said that other party was not in possession of landed property — Restoration of possession to other party — Not improper.Prevention of breach of peace – Power of Magistrate – Merely because civil suit is pending relating to property in dispute, jurisdiction of Magistrate to proceed u/S. 145 is not taken away – Order of status quo passed by Revenue Court – Hands of Magistrate are not tied for purpose and object of proceedings u/S. 145 to maintain law & order & to prevent breach of peace – Order for attachment of property by Magistrate – Not illegal.Dispute as to property — Appointment of receiver — Magistrate cannot summarily pass an order under Section 146(1) without recording a preliminary order under S. 145(1) — However, taking into consideration events that had taken place, direction issued that present arrangement has to be continued until Magistrate takes requisite steps to preserve public peace and to avoid any law and order problem.Order passed under S. 145 — Mandatory requirements — Order passed without passing of preliminary order under S. 145(1) — Held, not passing of preliminary order under sub-sec. (1) of S. 145 of Cr. P. C. vitiates entire proceedings — Merely sending a notice is itself not sufficient to comply mandatory requirements under S. 145(1) 2004 Cri LJ 91 (Mad) and 2003 Cri LJ 3820 (Mad), Rel. on.Breach of peace — Mere information that a dispute is likely to cause a breach of peace — Is not sufficient to exercise powers u/S. 145 of Cr. P.C. — Person who is in possession of property in dispute cannot be disposed and receiver cannot be appointed merely on basis of such an information — When petitioner himself was in possession of Ashram, it was duty of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Police to give him protection, instead of initiating proceedings under S. 145(1) of Cr. P.C. or passing orders u/S. 146(1) of Cr. P.C.Proceedings for breach of peace — Initiation of — Failure of Magistrate to assign any ground for his satisfaction that dispute had given rise to serious apprehension of breach of peace — Moreover dispute, if any between parties was a private dispute, which did not involve people in locality — Hence, such a dispute could not have been made foundation for drawing of proceeding under S. 145. AIR 1985 SC 472, Rel. on.

Dispute over title of property — Proceedings under S. 145 — Triable issue had been raised by plaintiff — Plaintiff had been residing with his family over structure raised by him over disputed property — Both balance of convenience as also irreparable injury lie in favour of plaintiff — Defendant had been kept out of possession for long time — In circumstances order of injunction in favour of plaintiff would have subserved interest of justice — Direction therefore issued to parties to maintain status quo till decision of Civil Court. Cri. Misc. No. 1709 of 2008, D/- 19-6-2008 (Ker.), Reversed.Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), Ss. 4, 5, 20 — Offence of dishonour of cheque — Evidence on affidavit — S. 145 of N.I. Act has overriding effect on provisions of Criminal P. C. providing contrary procedure for complainant—™s evidence at stage of enquiry or trial — Evidence of complainant may be given on affidavit not only during course of trial but even at pre-summoning stage i.e. before issue of process pursuant to S. 204 of Criminal P.C.Document not compulsorily registrable — Family settlement — Document simply reciting past events — Need not be registered — Unstamped and unregistered family settlement and map annexed thereto can be allowed to be exhibited. AIR 1988 SC 881, Rel. on.Decree for a specific performa is in discretion of Court but is not to be refused arbitrarily -the claimant must come to Court with clean hands - Respondent was bonafide purchaser for value without notice - Courts rightly refused to exercise discretion - Appeal dismissed.

Injunction — Balance of convenience — Must be held to be in favour of granting information — No injunction can be granted only if there is prima facie case but no balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of plaintiff.Question of balance of convenience and irreparable loss — Respondent acquiring right of development of suit property — Interim order preventing development would case irreparable loss and injury to respondent since it would not be able to utilize property till suit and appeal is disposed of — Respondent therefore permitted to carry out construction activities over disputed land, however restrained from alienating or transferring property or from creating any third party right therein during pendency of suit.

Unregistered sale deed - Admissibility - Suit for specific performance of contract - Defendantss case that plaintiff fraudulently obtained signatures on sale deed by stating it to be an agreement for sale and hence its registration was refused - Unregistered sale deed tendered as evidence - Plaintiffs case that sale deed executed by defendants not registered due to order of attachment of property - Same held to be inadmissible by trial court - Revision petition - Dismissed by High Court. Held having regard to the proviso to Section 49 the courts below erred in not admitting the unregistered sale deed. Under the proviso unregistered document affecting immovable property and required to be registered by 1908 Act/ Transfer of Property Act, 1882 may be admitted as evidence of contract in a suit for specific performance or of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. Thus an unregistered sale deed was admissible as proof of an oral agreement of sale but not as evidence of a completed sale.

Ready and willing to perform — Pleading and proof — Specific performance — Suit for — Plaintiff has to show that his conduct has been blemishless throughout — Provision imposes personal bar in event of plaintiff failing to do so — In suit, there was claim in respect of particular khasra number which did not form part of agreement — Plaint itself indicated that said khasra number was added later on — There was also an averment to effect that agreement related to a completed sale — Dismissal of suit on ground that requirements of S. 16(c) were not met — No interference. 2005 AIR SCW 4789, 2000 AIR SCW 2554, 1999 AIR SCW 2959, AIR 1968 SC 1355, Rel. on.Impleadment of party — Transferee pending suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Transfer made by transferees from defendant without leave of Court — Cannot claim impleadment in view of doctrine of lis pendens — Order impleading them on ground that there was nobody to represent and safeguard their interest — Liable to be set aside. 2007 (1) AIR Jhar R 254 : AIR 2007 (NOC) 520 (Jhar), Reversed. Impleadment of party — Transferee pending suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Transfer made by transferees from defendant without leave of Court — Cannot claim impleadment in view of doctrine of lis pendens — Order impleading them on ground that there was nobody to represent and safeguard their interest — Liable to be set aside. 2007 (1) AIR Jhar R 254 : AIR 2007 (NOC) 520 (Jhar), Reversed. Plaintiffs alleging that first defendant executed agreement of sale in their favour — Denied by first defendant — Burden to prove that first defendant had executed agreement would be on plaintiff and not on first defendant to prove the negative — Various circumstances when taken together, creating doubt about the genuineness of agreement and dislodge effect of evidence adduced by plaintiff — Dismissal of suit — Was proper.Amendment of plaint — Suit for specific performance of contract to sell — Mistake in description of suit property in plaint — Amendment sought to rectify mistake in plaint as well as in contract — Can be allowed in view of S. 26 — Nature of suit not changed by amendment.Amendment of plaint — Suit for specific performance of contract to sell — Mistake in description of suit property in plaint — Amendment sought to rectify mistake in plaint as well as in contract — Can be allowed in view of S. 26 — Nature of suit not changed by amendment.

The discretion u/S. 34 which the Court has to exercise is a judicial discretion. That discretion has to be exercised on well-settled principles. Therefore, the Court has consider the nature of obligation in respect of which performance is sought, circumstances under which the decision came to be made, the conduct of the parties and the effect of the Court granting the decree. In such cases, the Court has to look at the contract. The Court has to ascertain whether there exists an element of mutuality in the contract. If there is absence of mutuality the Court will not exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiff. Even if, want of mutuality is regarded as discretionary and not as an absolute bar to specific performance the Court has to consider the entire conduct of the parties in relation to the subject-matter and in case of any disqualifying circumstances the Court will not grant the relief prayed for.

Suit for specific performance — Agreement to sell — Vendor having no authority to sell property at time of execution of agreement with plaintiff — Agreement has no legal sanction — Suit on basis thereof is incompetent — Subsequent sale of property to third party — Third party found to be bona fide purchaser for value without notice — Sale is protected by S. 19(b) — Refusal of relief of specific performance to plaintiff — Proper.Agreement to sell — Specific performance of — Contract made by agent of purchasers — Purchasers knowing fully well that owner of property would not sell property to them in view of earlier disputes between them entered into agreement with third person as their agent — That third person by misrepresenting that he wanted to purchase property for himself obtained consent of owners of property — Such consent obtained by fraud or misrepresentation is not free consent — Such contract is voidable at instance of owner — Fact that third person was agent of purchasers was disclosed for first time in notice for specific performance — Hence even under S. 231 owners can refuse to fulfill contract — Decree for specific performance liable to be set aside.Agreement to sell share in coparcenary property — Relief of specific performance — Grant of — Vendor cosharer entering into contract in respect of his share as also on behalf of other co-sharer — Denial on part of other co-sharers to sell their share on ground of no authority being given to vendor co-sharer — In such case decree for specific performance can be granted to extent of share of vendor co-sharer — After purchase of share of vendor, vendee would step into shoes of vendor and would become co-sharer and can always seek partition.Void agreement — Defendant, under belief that virtue of allotment order itself he had authority to sell away property, which he got allotted from Development Authority — Allotment order showed by defendant to plaintiff and the latter believed that defendant had authority to sell away said property in her favour and under that belief she agreed to purchase same — Both plaintiff and defendant proceeded with transaction under a mistake as to fact that defendant had authority under said allotment order to sell property and, therefore, they entered into said agreement of sale — Said mistake of fact was mutual between both parties besides being essential for said agreement — By virtue of provisions of S. 20 said agreement of sale became void and unenforceable in law.

Hindu Law - – Joint family property – Alienation by Karta is permissible for legal necessity — Karta executing agreement to sell – He cannot subsequently avoid execution of sale deed on ground that his wife and son also had share in joint family property – Question whether sale was for legal necessity would arise after alienation was challenged – If sale was for legal necessity, it would bind every one including son – If aggrieved, son may seek to have the alienation set aside.Limitation Act (36 of 1963) - Art. 58 — Suit for declaration — Limitation —Sale deedd executed by power of attorney holder — Limitation for challenging the power of attorney and the sale deed was to be from the date of registration of the said document, especially when, possession was also handed over to vendors in pursuance to the sale deed and mutation was also duly sanctioned — Suit filed after expiry of 3 years — Barred by limitation.Temporary injunction to restrain alienation of property — Suit for cancellation of sale deed pending — Power of Attorney holder misused his authority and executed sale deed in favour of third party — Third party was in physical possession of property — Court restrained third party from alienating land as agricultural land was being sold for purposes of colonisation Possibility of fraud also not ruled out since Power of Attorney holder had execute sale deed in favour of his wife.Bar to subsequent suit — When not applicable — Withdrawal of earlier suit cannot bar subsequent suit merely because there was some overlapping of cause of action in subsequent suit compared with earlier suit.

Temporary injunction — Refusal — Validity — Suit for cancellation of sale deeds — Purchaser under sale deed in question was close relative and adopted son of seller, his right to sell his property was not in dispute — Purchaser had sufficient funds to purchase said agricultural land in question and adoption prima facie appeared to be genuine — Plaintiffs did not have a prima facie case in their favour for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendants from further alienating property or to direct status quo of suit property to be maintained — Validity of sale deed in question will be determined on basis of further evidence — Refusal to grant temporary injunction, properCourt fees — Determination — Suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed — Suit property was agricultural land — Word —œvalue of the property— and not —market value— of property is used in S. 6(iv)(ha) — Hence value of property for which sale deed was executed would be relevant and not its market value for determining Court fees.

Suit for declaration that mutation was illegal, null and void — No pleadings or evidence as to date on which plaintiff had derived knowledge about mutation and/or Will — Suit, rightly held as barred by limitation considering pleadings as a whole as set out in plaint.

Condonation of delay — Sufficient cause — —œLiberal approach— — Does not mean doing injustice to opposite party — Application to set aside abatement — Made belatedly — Ground raised for condonation not sufficient and also unbelievable — Delay cannot be condoned — Provisions of O. 22, R. 9 cannot be so construed so as to make it redundant. Highly belated appeal — Against award of reference Court — Condonation of delay — Appellant beneficiary informed about decision taken by Govt. to not file appeal — Yet indulging in making representation to Govt. — Filing appeal long after lapse of limitation — Beneficiary thus was not diligent in availing remedy of appeal — Delay not liable to be condoned.S. 5 — Delay in filing revision — Condonation of — “Sufficient cause’ — Delay of 36 days sought to be explained by bald statement that petitioner was suffering from viral fever and doctor had advised bed rest — No medical certificate produced to that effect — Explanation not credible — Delay cannot be condoned. Revision challenging order issuing process — Date of service of summons is the date of knowledge for revision petitioner to seek remedy of revision — Limitation would start from date of knowledge.Revision filed after expiry of about two decades — Liable to be dismissed — Revisional powers cannot be used arbitrarily at belated stage. Interpretation of statutes — Purpose and object of enactment.

Review — “Error apparent on face of record” — Will not encompass an error which is not self evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning — Re-hearing and correction of erroneous decision — Not permissible under O. 47, R. 1 — Review Petition cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.Review — Judgment in question — Cannot be reconsidered on self same grounds just because another conclusion is possible — Scope of review cannot be confused with that of appeal. Error apparent on face of record — Alleged error far from self evident — Can be established only by lengthy and complicated arguments — Not an error apparent on face of record.Power of review — Exercise of — Is permissible on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of person seeking review or could not be produced by him at time when order was made — It can be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on face of record is found — But it cannot be exercised on ground that decision was erroneous on merits.Causing death by negligence — Proof — Deceased was crushed underneath left rear tyres of truck — Accident had taken place at crowded place — How deceased came in contact with rear left tyres of truck and was crushed, not stated by witness — Prosecution had not examined any independent eye-witness — No necessary facts on record to prove rash or negligent driving by truck driver — Acquittal of accused, properCourt empowered to discharge accused if two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion – Whether trial will end in conviction or acquittal – Not relevant at this stage.Framing of charge — Charges can be framed if Court finds two views are possible from materials produced on record — But if only one and one view is possible to be taken — Court cannot put accused to harassment by asking him to face trial. Constitution of IndiaCausing death by negligence — Proof — Accused allegedly driving tempo-truck at high speed hit motor cyclist — Path of movement of vehicles must be sought to be established in course of investigation and not be left open to ambiguity and doubt — Questions whether motor cyclist was taking turn on a green light or a red light and so too whether petitioner was driving tempo/truck crossing green light or a red light remained unanswered as site plan had not been exhibited — Non-examination of investigating officer resulted in prejudice being caused to accused — Testimony of head constable that accused was driving vehicle at “high speed” — Expression “high speed” is an unclear expression — No evidence to conclusively indicate that accused was driving vehicle in rash and negligent manner — Accused is entitled to be acquitted. 1998 SCC (Cri) 1508 Folletting aside ex parte decree — Expression sufficient cause— — Meaning — Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. Words and Phrases — Sufficient cause— — Meaning. Notice served by registered post as well as by publication in newspaper — Presumption of service — Presumption cannot be rebutted by bald statement made by wife that she was living at different address with her brother — Respondent wife made no attempt to establish there had been fraud or collusion between husband and postman — No case that “National Herald†daily newspaper published from Delhi did not have wide circulation in Delhi or in area where wife was residing with her brother — Ex parte decree, not liable to be set aside.

Neither the transferor 'J' nor the transferee 'S' took steps for incorporating change of ownership in the certificate of registration. Hence, 'J' must be deemed to continue as the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of the Act and was therefore equally liable for payment of compensation. As insurance policy was in his name he would be indemnified and the claim would shift to the insurer. Temporary injunction — Suit for partition — Plaintiffs on one side claimed that they were entitled to property as Class II heirs of deceased and defendant on other side claimed property on basis of Will — Issue as to who would be entitled, and shares to which they would be entitled to, required to be decided by trial Court — During pendency of proceedings before trial Court, property needs to be protected — Defendant restrained from transferring or from selling property in dispute, but with liberty to carry out repairs for maintenance of property.Grant of bail — Denial — Legality — Petitioner accused alleged to have committed offence under Ss. 447 and 302 of Penal Code — Although accused was minor, his application seeking bail was rejected — Plea by accused that gravity of offence committed cannot be ground for declining bail to juvenile as S. 12 was mandatory — Was tenable — As per S. 12 bail should be granted to juvenile irrespective of nature or gravity of offence — And in absence of exceptional circumstances for denying bail — Order rejecting bail to accused was liable to be set aside.Temporary injunction — Refusal — Validity — Suit filed for declaration of sale deed as ineffective and to return Land in dispute back to plaintiff — In such case, in order to protect interest of parties, trial Court should have directed that parties should maintain status quo — Such an order would have prevented emergence of third party rights and also emergence of future litigation — Refusal to grant injunction, improper.Dishonour of Cheque — Signed blank cheque issued by drawer-accused — Extent of liability disputed — As yet, drawee/complainant filled-up cheque for an amount not admitted by drawer — Accused able to prove that there is bona fide dispute with regard to extent of liability — Dishonour of cheque under such circumstance does not attract prosecution u/S. 138 of N. I. Act — Dismissal of complaint is proper.Dishonour of Cheque — Words —œfor discharge of any debt or other liability— in S. 138 — Should be interpreted to mean current existing or past ascertained liabilities — Appellant-Company supplied products on credit to dealers — Dealers required to deposit signed blank cheques as a security for credit supply — Such cheques issued in respect of future liabilities not in existence as on the date of cheque would not attract prosecution u/S. 138 of N.I. Act. AIR 2003 SC 3014, Disting.Dishonour of cheque — Statutory presumption is in favour of holder that cheque has been issued for discharge of debt or liability — Defence of accused has to be specific as to why cheque was issued — If it was issued for purpose of security or any other purpose then cheque issued did not come within purview of S. 138 of Act.

It is well-known that the appellate court would not interfere with a judgment of acquittal only because another view is possible. On the other hand, if two views are possible, it is trite, the appellate court shall not interfere. It is one of those cases, where two views were not possible.Application for setting aside ex parte order — Maintainability — Hearing of suit completed and suit adjourned for pronouncing judgment — Order 9, R. 7 would have no application — Order cannot be set aside by invoking O. 9, R. 7 or S. 151.An order passed by a person lacking inherent jurisdiction would be a nullity. The principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or even res judicata which are procedural in nature would have no application in a case where an order has been passed by the Tribunal/Court which has no authority in that behalf. Any order passed by a Court without jurisdiction would be coram non judice being a nullity, the same ordinarily should not be given effect to. However, a distinction must be made between a decree passed by a Court which has no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction in the light of Section 21 and a decree passed by a Court having no jurisdiction in regard to the subject-matter of the suit. Whereas in the former case, the appellate Court may not interfere with the decree unless prejudice is shown, ordinarily the second category of the cases would be interfered with.Amendment of pleading — Permissibility — Amendment even if permitted was not advancing case of plaintiff — Proposed amendment was not consistent with case set up in plaint — Order refusing permission to amendment of pleadings proper.Amendment of written statement — Application filed after commencement of trial — No justifiable and cogent reasons for delay in moving amendment application given — Finding recorded that facts sought to be incorporated by amendment were in knowledge of petitioner and that amendment if allowed would materially change nature of dispute — Rejection of amendment application, proper.Defendants by way of amendment making all efforts to build up different but incompatible aspects of defence and in that exercise have placed on record several doubtful documents — Amendment as prayed for was not appear bona fide and allowing same would be causing serious prejudice to plaintiff — Amendment cannot be allowed.Withdrawal of admission — Permissibility — Admission once made is binding on party — In another case also admission written statements were filed — It cannot be said that written statement was due to misrepresentation or fraud as alleged — No details of fraud, misrepresentation given — Admission cannot be withdrawn by way of amendment.Withdrawal of admission — Permissibility — Suit for partition — By way of amendment defendant-petitioner wanted to bring on fact that all shops were constructed on land which was not ancestral — Proposed amendment had effect of withdrawal of clear admission made in written statement by defendant that shops were constructed on land which came into his share — Rejection of amendment, proper.

Deceased died due to motor-cycle accident — Back tier of vehicle burst and deceased fell down and received head injury — Tribunal dismissed claim application on ground that it was case of self accident of owner and driver of vehicle and no third party involved — Errone-ous — Whenever any accident occurs causing death or injury to a person in course of use of vehicle jurisdiction of Claims Tribu-nal arises — Matter remitted to Tribunal.Accident claim — Entitlement to compensation — Married daughter of deceased — Though not dependant on deceased is entitled to compensation — She is ‘legal representative’ under S. 166. 2004 (1) Cal LJ 205, Reversed.Unstamped and unregistered document, even if not admissible in evidence, can be looked into for collateral purpose — Plaintiff therefore can be allowed to lead secondary evidence in respect of such document. AIR 2003 SC 1905, Foll.Dishonour of cheque — Complaint — Averments that notice sent under S. 138 Proviso (b) was evaded by accused or that accused had played role in return of notice unserved — Not necessary in view of presumption under S. 27 of G. C. Act. General Clauses Act Dishonour of cheque — Complaint — Averments that notice sent under S. 138 Proviso (b) was evaded by accused or that accused had played role in return of notice unserved — Not necessary in view of presumption under S. 27 of G. C. Act. General Clauses Act

Condonation of delay — Appellant illiterate villagers going place to place for work — Getting knowledge of order passed against them only when they reached their village — Appeal filed immediately on knowing that they should file appeal — Delay stands sufficiently explained — Dismissal of second appeal on ground of limitation — Improper.Condonation of delay — Application for — Court while deciding application cannot go into merits of case — Averments made in application moreover, sufficient to explain delay — Order refusing to condone delay in filing appeal — Liable to be set aside.

not—™ governed by Rent Control Act — Subsequently, amendment sought to delete word —کnot—™ from written statement — It amounts to withdrawal of admission already taken — Amendment cannot be allowed.

Dishonour of cheque — Complaint — Giving of notice to drawer — When to be presumed — Notice despatched by sender by post with correct address on it — It can be deemed to be served on sendee unless he proves that it was not really served. general clauses Act (10 of 1897), S. 27.

Although no period of limitation has been prescribed for exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the same would not mean that the suo motu power can be exercised at any time. Revisional jurisdiction should ordinarily be exercised within a period of three years having regard to the purport in terms of the Act. In any event, the same should not exceed the period of five years

S. 65 — Secondary evidence — Photocopy of document — Admissibility — Executor merely admitted his signatures on photocopy of power of attorney but denied its content thereof — Court without considering probative value of contents of document, decreed suit for specific performance — Improper.Photostat copy of will — Admissibility — Loss of original copy — Proof — Date on which plaintiff had handed over original will to his counsel not given in petition — Document with endorsement of officer in Nagar Palika, who had compared copy of will filed in Nagar Palika with original will taken by plaintiff, not produced — Witness did not remember as to when original will was shown to officer in Nagar Palika — Plaintiff thereby had not proved loss of original will — Secondary evidence in shape of Photostat copy of original will, would not be admissible in evidence.

Original Will not produced — Existence of original Will duly admitted and not denied by defendants in written statements — Certified copy of Will is admissible — Can be produced and marked in evidence. AIR 2001 SC 1151, 2007 (4) AIR Kar R 20, DistingExecution of Will — When said to be proved — Original Will was not at all produced before Court — No pleading or evidence of loss of original Will — Even otherwise copy of such Will was not produced — Party even did not seek to prove Will by secondary evidence — Since no amount of oral evidence about execution of any Will would be admissible unless original was produced or copy was produced and loss of original was proved — In such circumstances, Will executed by deceased cannot be said to be proved.

Certified copy of the Will is not a public doucment within meaning of S. 74 — Not admissible per se in evidence — Consequently certified copy of Will produced on record of case cannot be presumed to be primary document which could be adduced in evidence and same could be proved only by leading secondary evidence after taking permission of Court and proving loss, destruction etc. of document.Public document — Does not include pleadings of party — It comes within purview of private document — Therefore, certified copy of a written statement allegedly filed by plaintiff in an earlier suit, is not per se admissible in evidence

Claim for Khatedari rights — Mere possession of land not sufficient to claim Khatedari rights — It should be coupled with payment of rent and contract express or implied — Payment of rent by plaintiff tenant not established — No Khatedari rights can be claimed.

Filing of frivolous suit — Amounts to abuse of process of Court — Such suit cannot be dismissed under O. 7, R. 11 since grounds mentioned in O. 7, R. 11 are that suit is barred by law or it does not disclose cause of action or proper Court-fees had not been paid — But Court is not helpless and can invoke powers under S. 151 and dismiss suit under S. 151.Application for rejection of plaint — Ground that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute — Rejection — Validity — Dispute relating to securities transaction — Under rules and by-laws framed by Bombay Stock Exchange for any dispute between Broker, Sub-Broker and client, specific provision of arbitration was provided and dispute was required to be sent for arbitration before Arbitration Committee constituted by Bombay Stock Exchange — By-laws of Bombay Stock Exchange not considered while deciding application under O. 7, R. 11 — Improper — Matter remitted for decision afresh.Return of plaint — Suit for permanent injunction — Suit related to agricultural land and was not triable by Civil Court — Then Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to dismiss the suit also — At the most suit could be returned to plaintiff for presentation of same in Competent Court having jurisdiction.o.7, r. 11, S. 92 — Rejection of plaint — Application for, should be made prior to grant of leave of Court or at time when appellants opposed grant of leave — Once leave is granted question of rejecting plaint under O. 7, r. 11 did not arise. (Para 11)Court-fee — Suit for declaration that sale deed executed by plaintiff—™s father is null and void and for joint possession — Is not a suit for cancellation of sale deed — Court-fee need not be paid on sale consideration mentioned in sale deeds — Court-fee payable is computable under Section 7(iv)(c). Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 34.Declaratory decree — Suit for cancellation of sale deed, and general power of attorney as being null and void and for injunction against defendant — Suit cannot be considered as one for mere declaratory relief — Trial Court without referring to Ss. 38 and 26 of Act erroneously accepted Court fee paid by plaintiff by as per S. 24 of Act — Matter remanded to trial Court to determine correct Court fee payable as regards market value of suit property as on date of suit.

Ancestral property — Succession prior to 1994 amendment — Father having seven sons three daughters — His ancestral property prior to his death would be divided in eight equal parts i.e. 1/8th for himself and 1/8th each for the seven sons — Each of the sons will get 1/8th share in the total property — On the demise of father his 1/8th share will go to his widow — It would be only on the demise of his widow the seven sons and three daughters will get equal share in the share held by her — On her death the seven sons and three daughters thus will each get 1/10 share from the 1/8th share of the total property and, therefore, each one of them will have 1/8th share in the total property — Order of Court making 11 parts of total property inherited by father by treating 11 coparcener in all i.e. father, seven son and three daughters not proper as married daughters could not get equal shares with sons prior to (1994) amendment introducing chapter II-A consisting of Ss. 29A to 29CAncestral property — Property inherited by sons in individual capacity — Son’s son/sons have no right therein as coparceners by their birth — Sale deed executed by one of members of family — Plaintiffs as sons are not entitled to declaration that sales are not binding on their shares.Joint family property — Suit to set aside sale — Ground that it was not for legal necessity — Sale in question by plaintiff’s father — Plaintiff’s father inheriting property along with his sister — Land partitioned and recorded in name of each — Loses character of joint family property — S. 6 has not application — Plaintiff’s father and his sisters were tenants in common — Each had right to transfer his share of land — Suit liable to be dismissed

Setting aside of ex parte decree — It is knowledge of ‘date of hearing’ and not knowledge of pendency of suit which is relevant for second proviso to O. 9, R. 13 — No summon of application under S. 6 of Act of 1957 for specific date was served upon petitioner — Presumption of service of summon upon him cannot be drawn only on basis of pendency of application under S. 6 of Act — Ex parte decree passed liable to be set aside. AIR 2002 SC 2370, Rel. on.

Effect of substituting or adding new plaintiff or defendant - Suit filed against dead person - Application for substituting legal heirs - Error committed due to a mistake made in good faith - Held that its effect is not to begin from the date on which the application for the purpose was made, or from the date of permission but from the date of the suit, deeming it to have been correctly instituted on an earlier date than the date of making the application

, CPC, pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant. The whole plaint has to be read and if it discloses no cause of action, then, the plaint as a whole, or part of the plaint can be rejected. In the instant case, the defendant had filed application under O. 7,

½ years — No limitation prescribed for filing an application u/O. 9, R. 7 — It is open to Court to condone absence of defendant at any stage of proceedings — However only at stage when matter posted for judgment after completing trial proceedings, application filed u/O. 9, R. 7 cannot be maintained.

third party—™ liability — Deceased succumbed to injuries sustained while attempting to board goods carrier from behind — Evidence shows that driver of vehicle enabled deceased board vehicle and for whatever reasons suddenly moved vehicle and in such process deceased fell down and succumbed to injuries sustained by him — Even though driver carried out an unauthorized act of carrying passenger in goods vehicle — Owner cannot be absolved of its vicarious liability for negligent careless act of driver — Deceased covered very much within phrase —

Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) - O. 7, R. 11(d) — Re-jection of plaint — Ground of limitation — If a suit on face of it is barred by limitation it can be rejected under O. 7, R. 11 of Code — However question whether suit is within limitation is to be considered only on basis of averments in plaint. If a suit is on the face of it barred by limitation it can be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code. In such a case it is not necessary to push the parties to trial merely because limitation is mixed question of fact and law. But it does not follow that the objections of the defendant to the date shown in the plaint as the date of accrual of cause of action can be looked into at that stage. The question whether the suit is within limitation or not would have to be considered by the Court for the purpose of application for rejection of plaint only on the basis of averments in the plaint.Limitation Act (36 of 1963) - Art. 54 — Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 20 — Suit for specific performance of contract — Starting point of limitation — If date is not fixed in contract limitation starts from date of refusal on part of defendant to perform contract — Refusal requires demand by plaintiff and if demand is refused, that gives cause of action — Refusal to re-deliver possession by defendant will not give rise to cause of action — Cause of action was for demand of execution of sale deed — Plaint does not show as to when demand was made by plaintiff for registering sale deed in his favour — Burden is on plaintiff to show that there was embargo to be lifted by Govt. and it had prevented plaintiff from seeking registration of the sale — Waiting for 19 years, does not give right to plaintiff to sue for specific performance, but for penalty of Rs. 30,000/-

Counter-claim — Payment of Court-fees — Plaintiff filing appeal challenging decree of Court dismissing their suit for recovery of amount as also decreeing amount of counter-claim — Plaintiffs are required to pay Court-fee on amount of counter-claim — If court-fee is not paid in respect of decree on counter-claim, that part of decree would be final and would operate as res judicata. AIR 1997 Ker 318, Rel. on.the merits of the case can be decided before the delivery of the judgment and if the court comes to the conclusion that the court-fee paid is deficient, it may defer the pronouncement of the judgment and ask the party to pay the deficit court-fee as per valuation of the Court, Thus, the multiplicity of the proceedings delay in the disposal of the suit and calling and recalling the witnesses every time can be avoided and it will serve the cause of justice and the cause of litigants also

Eviction of tenant — Ground that landlord required suit shop for running his own business — Earlier landlord used to sit with his son in latter’s shop but subsequently there had been some disputes between them and relations between them became strained resulting thereby his son declined to allow his father to sit in shop in which his son had business of trading in cement — Bona fide need proved — Tenant liable to be evicted.

Rejection of plaint — Application for — Ground that suit for injunction was barred by law — Suit premises given on lease by general body of society to defendant by way of resolution — Prima facie relationship of landlord and tenant established — Suit filed for injunction was in effect for seeking revocation of said resolution and dispossession — Such a suit could only be filed before Rent Tribunal — Civil Court’s jurisdiction would be barred — Plaint liable to be rejected.

Suit for eviction — Ground of personal bona fide necessity — Death of landlord during pendency of suit — Bona fide need would continue even after his death as it was claimed for himself and his son — Subsequent events in form of sale of said property would not ipso facto upset the decree — Attornment in favour of purchaser would be automatic — Purchaser of property would be entitled for vacant possession. 1987 (Supp) SCC 630 and 1998 DNJ (Raj) 293, Distg.

Suit for eviction — Ground of sub- letting — Suit property let out to original tenant prior to her entering into partnership firm — Subsequently he shifted to London and never returned — Partnership managed by other defendant and was never registered with Registrar of Firms — Partnership was thus drawn up merely to provide a cover and to make believe that original tenant had not parted with possession of suit premises in favour of defendant — Subletting proved — Eviction ordered, not improper.Bona fide need — Petition filed taking grounds of bona fide need and that property in question was taken on rent for residential purpose but, later on, school was opened in said premises and tenant started using said property for commercial purpose — Finding of fact recorded that premises was let out for commercial purpose — On such case Chapters II and III of Act will apply and landlord would be entitled for eviction decree upon ground of bona fide necessity.

Suit for eviction — Personal bona fide necessity — Landlord having factory for manufacturing furniture and handicrafts required suit shop for opening their showroom of furniture and handicrafts — Plea that no books of accounts were produced before trial Court to show loss caused on account of non-setting up showroom, not tenable — Since sufferance of actual loss of non-setting up of showroom of furniture and handicrafts was not necessary as such loss could not be measured in terms of money nor it was recorded in books of accounts — Suit decreed on ground of personal bona fide need, not improper.Commercial premises — Suit for eviction — Bona fide need — Landlord had retired from Govt. service and he wanted to do his own business in suit premises — Death of landlord during pendency of appeal — Requirement of premises by his legal heirs namely widow will not extinguish on his death — Fact that widow was getting pension and her sons were also in employment, cannot be ground to deny her possession — Even widow has her own independent right of survival and earn her livelihood after death of her husband — Eviction ordered.Suit for eviction — Default in payment of rent — Rent provisionally determined in terms of S. 13(3) of 1950 Act — But no order passed by trial court in suit and defence of tenant was not struck off — Subsequent withdrawal of suit after enforcement of Act of 2001 — No provision akin to provisions of S. 13(3) to 13(5) of the Act of 1950, providing for determination of rent provisionally or striking out defence on account of non payment of amount determined provisionally or monthly rent subsequent thereto, incorporated in Act of 2001 — Question of striking out the defence of the tenant in proceedings for eviction u/S. 9 of the Act of 2001 would not arise — Even if, any such right had accrued to petitioner during pendency of eviction proceedings before trial Court under Act of 1950, the same cannot be enforced in fresh eviction proceedings lodged under provisions of S. 9 of Act of 2001.Amendment in written statement — Permissibility — Crutial date is date of petition — Suit for eviction of tenant from shop — Amendment sought in appeal to incorporate plea that ground of bona fide necessity ceased to exist due to appointment of son of landlord in Bank — Fact of appointment was not in existence at stage of trial — If such application will be allowed at appellate stage then certainly at every stage after adjudication, parties will take plea of amendment and no trial Court will be able to adjudicate matter finally and there will be no end of dispute — Said ground cannot be allowed to take away ground of personal bona fide necessity of landlord — Amendment cannot be allowed. AIR 2005 SC 1274, Rel. on. AIR 2007 SC 2511, AIR 2002 SC 3369, Disting

Setting aside ex parte decree — On basis of material on record, no conclusion could be drawn that defendants had notice about date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear before Court and answer plaintiff— s claim — In interest of justice, defendants deserve to be granted an opportunity to contest suit — Ex parte decree set aside.Possession of contraband — Search and seizure — Competent authority — Sub-Inspector who conducted search and seizure was not posted as Station House Officer at relevant time at concerned Police Station — Thus, search and seizure cannot be said to have been conducted by competent officer — Conviction of accused liable to be set aside.

Alleged encroachment of suit land of appellant Board — Respondents’ land adjacent to suit land — Application for demarcation by appellant before trial Court, was rejected — Application for appointment of Local Commissioner for demarcation of suit land filed by appellant before Appellate Court was also rejected — High Court did not consider whether Local Commissioner should be appointed for purpose of demarcation — Summarily dismissed second appeal on basis of concurrent findings of fact that Board failed to prove encroachment by respondents — Order of High Court liable to be set aside. R. S. A. No. 3374 of 2003, D/- 16-1-2007 (Punj. and Har.) - Reversed.Local Commissioner — Can be appointed even at appellate stage — Boundary disputes — Encroachment — Earlier demarcation not carried out in accordance with law — Application seeking appointment of local Commissioner to demarcate land in question to ascertain encroachment — Rejected on technical ground, not proper — Appellate Court directed to appoint local Commissioner and accordingly decide issue of encroachment.

Appointment of Commissioner for local inspetion — Report submitted by Commissioner — Found dissatisfactory by Court — Court should direct further enquiry and call for supplementary report from same Commissioner — R. 10 does not authorize Court to set aside Commissioner’s report if it was found to be deficient and did not answer point in controversy.

Appointment of second Commissioner — Permissibility — Application for appointment of second Commissioner on ground that first Commissioner while preparing report relied upon sketch which was suspended by High Court — Held, proper course with petitioner is to request trial Court to direct first Commissioner himself to make a local inspection again or to convince trial Court about unacceptability of first report and seek appointment of second Commissioner

Appointment of Commissioner — Plaintiff seeking injunction against defendants from disturbing plaintiffs running vegetable market — Defendants denied existence of such market — Application filed by plaintiffs for appointment of an advocate-Commissioner — Commissioner can be appointed for purpose of ascertaining state of things that may be asserted and denied by rival parties — Rejection of application by trial Court on ground that plaintiffs could not seek to fish out evidence or establish a state of things — Improper.

Adverse possession — Is a question of fact which has to be specifically pleaded and proved — plaintiff neither asserted plea of adverse possession nor any issue was framed by trial Court in this regard — None of the parties lead any evidence on point — Held, appellate Court by erroneously making out an altogether new case which was not pleaded set aside judgment passed by trial Court and decreed suit filed by plaintiff.Effect of non-registration — Agreement of sale written on plain paper and not registered — Would not confer any right, title or interest to transferee — Transferee acquiring possession of suit shop in part performance of agreement — Transferee at the most can avail benefit of S. 53-A of T. P. Act only as shield and not as sword. Transfer of Property Plea of limitation — Defence that suit was barred by time — Set up in Written Statement — No specific issue framed — Trial Court coming to finding that suit was barred by time — First Appellate Court and also High Court not going into said question nor deciding it before reversing judgment of Trial Court — Plea of limitation before Supreme Court under Art. 136

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.Plea of demanding specific performance is available only to vendor /defendant and is personal to him, and subsequent purchasers have no right - The plea that plaintiff must be ready and willing to perform his part of the contract must be available only to the vendor or his legal representatives but not to subsequent purchasers - SLP dismissed.

Suit for specific performance - Respondent had instituted a suit for perpetual injunction and by an application under O.6, R.17 CPC, the respondent got the suit converted into one for specific performance by order dated 25.8.1989 - Limitation had started from April 6, 1986 - Held that suit filed after 3 years was clearly barred by limitationSpecific performance of contarct for sale - Under the agreement, date fixed by reference to the occurrence of certain event i.e. the redemption of the mortgage - Requirement of Article 113 - Actual day need not be mentioned on the deed, but the basis of the calculation which was to make it certain should be found therein.

Suit for Specific performance of contract - Limitation -- Appellant entering into an agreement for sale of his land to respondent in October 1982 - Respondent upon paying certain amount as earnest money put in physical possession of the land -Sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered upon disposal of an appeal pending in High Court - As per the sale agreement respondent was to repay an amount of Rs. 42,000 to a bank being the loan taken by the appellant from the bank - Bank having filed a suit for recovery appellant issuing notice to respondent on 24-4-1984 directing him to pay the loan amount to the bank and get the sale deed executed within 15 days failing which the agreement shall stand cancelled - Respondent depositing an amount of only Rs. 10,000 in the bank on 25-5-1985 - On 26-9-1989 respondent filing a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale - Trial court decreeing the suit - Lower appellate court however holding the suit to be barred by limitation - On further appeal High Court holding that since time was not the essence of the contract the suit was not barred and accordingly remitting the matter to the lower appellate court - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that since the suit was not filed within three years from the date of expiry of the period of fifteen days specified in the notice dated 24-4-1984 it was barred by limitation.Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale - Suit filed almost 29 years after the sale agreement - Defendant disputing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court and also taking the stand that the suit was barred by limitation - Trial court holding that it had jurisdiction to try the suit and dismissing the suit as being barred by limitation - Lower appellate court as well as High Court affirming the decision and dismissing the appeal - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that the trial court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. Applicability of Section 46 of the Contract Act and several other pleas available to the defendants which were required to be considered, cannot enable the dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation. Matter accordingly remitted to trial court for fresh consideration of all the issues.Agreement for sale of property - Form of contract and execution of deeds - Performance of contract - Limitation for raising the plea of specific performance - Private limited company (company) owning certain property entering into an agreement with first respondent for sale - Agreement for sale dated 18.4.1971 -Company receiving advance amount for sale - In May 1971 company filing a suit against some persons claiming ownership over the property and obtaining a consent decree on 3.5.1978 - Thereafter first respondent writing letters on 12-11-1979, 11.1.1980, 5.1.1981 and 8.10.1984 asking the company to execute and register the sale deed - Company also assuring the first respondent that it would do the needful - However on 21.8.1985 company refusing to execute and register the deed on the plea that the same became barred by limitation - First respondent filing suit for specific performance in 1985 - During pendency of the suit company selling the property to appellant - Appellant contesting the suit and disputing its maintainability - Trial court decreeing the suit - Appeals there against dismissed by the lower appellate court as well as High Court. Dismissing further appeal held that since the period of limitation got extended by conduct of the parties the suit was not barred. Execution of the agreement by the company in favour of the first respondent had not been denied at any stage. Even in the absence of any resolution on the part of the company or official seal of the company in the agreement the contract could not be held to be invalid or illegal. Decretal of the suit for specific performance consequently upheld.

Rejection of plaint — On ground that second suit was filed without obtaining leave under O. 2, R. 2 — Second suit was filed for specific performance of agreement — First suit was filed for injunction — Cause of action was substantively same in both suits as both suits were based on agreement executed between plaintiff and defendants — Plaintiff omitted prayer for specific performance in first suit — Second suit was required to be filed after obtaining leave under O. 2, R. 2 — Suit was filed without obtaining leave under O. 2, R. 2 — Rejection of plaint proper.

Rejection of plaint — Suit for specific performance of contract — Case of defendants that Memorandum of Understanding entered into between parties is void and illegal — Civil court is entitled to take cognizance of every dispute of civil nature unless law prohibits it either expressly or impliedly from entertaining the dispute — Party seeking rejection of plaint under O. 7, R. 11 must show provision of law prohibiting civil court from entertaining the dispute or that an alternate forum or remedy is provided — Failure to show any such provision of law — Rejection of plaint not proper.

Eviction decree on basis of Compromise — Enforcement — Eviction sought on ground of reasonable and bona fide need — Compromise between parties whereunder tenant agreed to vacate premises within stipulated date — Inference can be drawn that tenant admitted existence of grounds of eviction — Tenant not handing over possession after stipulated date — rent control Tribunal would be empowered to execute certificate of recovery of possession issued on basis of compromise. tribunal is not precluded from applying principles underlying provisions of CPC for finding out truth — If there is difference between the parties on material question of law and facts, then, in civil proceedings for just decision of matter, it is always advisable to frame issues/points of determination.

Dishonour of cheque — Offences by companies — Petitioner, Additional Director of accused-company resigned before cheque in question was dishonoured — No specific averments in complaint as to how and in what manner petitioner was responsible for conduct of the business of company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning — Complaint against petitioner quashed.Court-fee — Suit for declaration that sale deed executed by plaintiff—™s father is null and void and for joint possession — Is not a suit for cancellation of sale deed — Court-fee need not be paid on sale consideration mentioned in sale deeds — Court-fee payable is computable under Section 7(iv)(c). Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 34.

Registration of sale agreement — Whether mandatory for seeking injunction — Applicant sought injunction on ground that he had purchased suit property and paid part consideration — Unregistered sale deed showing delivery of possession to applicant on payment of 85% sale consideration — Reliability — Had the applicant sought benefit of part performance under S. 53-A of T. P. Act registration of sale deed would have been mandatory — Since no such benefit is claimed, unregistered sale deed can be relied upon by Court in an injunction application.

Registration of sale deed — Validity — Suit for specific performance on basis of unregistered sale deed was pending before Civil Court — Jurisdiction of Civil Court is plenary in nature and, therefore, all questions in respect of execution of documents and receipt of sale consideration or execution of agreement are issues, which are required to be examined in civil suit — Invocation of jurisdiction of Registrar under S. 73 of Act would be abuse of process of law — Therefore, order passed by Registrar directing registration of sale deed during pendency of matter before Civil Court would be improper.

Suit for declaration and partition - Petitioner along with his brother inherited suit property from his deceased father - Mutation of land was recorded in favour of his brother only - Evidence on record so also in Panchayat election list name of petitioner was shown as son of his father - Mutation attested in favour of his brother cannot deprive petitioner of his right - Finding that petitioner was son of his father and thus entitled to one half share from land in dispute - Is proper.Agreement to sell — Specific performance — Mere fact that there is stipulation in agreement that in event of default of defendant, plaintiff would be entitled to refund of amount — By itself would not disentitle plaintiff to decree for specific performance. AIR 2000 SC 2408, AIR 2000 SC 191, AIR 1999 SC 2309 and AIR 1994 Raj 259, Rel. on. Suit for recovery of possession by person wrongfully dispossessed — Limitation — Is to be computed from date of actual dispossession and not from date of knowledge of dispossession — Finding recorded by trial Court by considering date of knowledge as date of dispossession and decree of restoration passed — Improper and liable to be set aside.

Agreement of sale — Payment of entire consideration and possession also delivered — Execution of sale deed but failure to get it registered — Suit for specific performance on basis of executed agreement — Maintainable. Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), Ss. 53A and 55(1)(d). Registration Act (16 of 1908), S. 59.

Agreement to sell — Suit for specific performance — Readiness and willingness — Plaintiff vendee not pleading that he was ready and willing to pay balance amount or that he made any effort to pay the same — Not entitled to relief of specific performance. (B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 16 (c) — Agreement to sell — Suit for specific performance — Subsequent purchaser of property who were defendant in suit — Entitled to raise plea that plaintiff (prior purchaser) was never ready and willing to perform his part of contract. AIR 2000 SC 860, Rel. on.

Chargeability of instrument with duty — Determination by Collector — Is revisable — Issuance of certificate by endorsement by Collector under S. 32(3) — Does not take away right of revision in terms of S. 56(4) — Only revisional order would be final and not the order of original authority — S. 53A (as amended by Bombay Stamp Act) would be of no assistance.Impounding of insufficiently stamped document — Insufficiently stamped document if admitted in evidence, S. 36 gets attracted and Court is prohibited from re-opening matter — The question of judicial determination of matter arises when objection is taken when document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in the case.

Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act (7 of 1952), S. 47A(1) (as inserted by Raj. Act 10 of 1982) — Stamp duty — Assessment — Relevant date for determining market value — Stamp duty on sale deed — Current market value at time of execution has to be seen — Fact that purchaser had to litigate for getting sale deed executed — Immaterial.

Impounding of document — Letter containing terms and conditions of agreement to sell immovable property — Nothing to show that rights and interest in property were actually created by oral agreement and letter only incorporated its terms — Letter in question is instrument u/S. 2(14) — Liable to be impounded for non-payment of stamp duty. Presumption as to document 30 years old — Sale deed — Date of execution of document was mentioned as Paushsudi Ekam Samvat 1890 — Document revealed name of seller and purchaser and consideration was also mentioned in it — Names of witnesses were also mentioned and also as to by whom it was written — Possession and ownership of grandfather of defendant on basis of said document can be said to have been proved. 1957 Raj LW 267, Rel. on.Suit for specific performance — Necessary parties — Are one who are parties to contract, their legal representative or person who had purchased contracted property from vendor with or without notice — Any person claiming independent right in property in question, including co-owner or coparcener is not a necessary party to suit for specific performance. 1995 AIR SCW 1782 and AIR 2005 SC 2813, Rel. on.Suit for specific performance — Necessary parties — Are one who are parties to contract, their legal representative or person who had purchased contracted property from vendor with or without notice — Any person claiming independent right in property in question, including co-owner or coparcener is not a necessary party to suit for specific performance. 1995 AIR SCW 1782 and AIR 2005 SC 2813, Rel. on.Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Alternative relief of refund of earnest money — Grant of — Suit property purchased by bona fide purchaser during pendency of suit having no knowledge of prior agreement — Lapse of 19 years — Held, after lapse of so many years property which was sold to bona fide purchaser cannot be ordered to be re-sold to plaintiff prior purchaser — Relief of return of earnest money granted.Relief of specific performance of contract — Entitlement to — Suit filed by prior purchaser — Subsequent purchaser did not have knowledge of agreement between prior purchaser and vendor — Property was already in possession of subsequent purchaser — Hence, prior purchaser would not be entitled to specific performance of contract, in spite of his willingness to perform his part of contract.

Specific performance — Suit for — Agreement for sale between plaintiff and defendants owners — Defendants subsequently sold suit property in favour of appellants — Impleadment of appellants who are subsequent purchasers — Restriction however placed on appellants that they cannot raise plea of readiness and willingness — Proper — Only issue that can be adjudicated in suit is whether appellants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice 2000 AIR SCW 442, Disting.Sale deed — Cancellation — Deed executed when transferor was suffering from alcoholic Psychosis — Fact of his mental illness proved by medical certificate — Deed in question also showing that valuable land was sold at very paltry amount — Sale being by person who was not of sound mind — Liable to be set aside — Unsoundness of mind of transferor — Is finding of fact — No interference permissible in second appeal. 2001 (3) Ker LT 580, Reversed.Temporary injunction — Refusal — Validity — Suit for cancellation of sale deeds — Purchaser under sale deed in question was close relative and adopted son of seller, his right to sell his property was not in dispute — Purchaser had sufficient funds to purchase said agricultural land in question and adoption prima facie appeared to be genuine — Plaintiffs did not have a prima facie case in their favour for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendants from further alienating property or to direct status quo of suit property to be maintained — Validity of sale deed in question will be determined on basis of further evidence — Refusal to grant temporary injunction, proper.

Rajasthan Tenancy Act (3 of 1955), S. 15 — Cancellation of mutation entry — Delay in making reference to Board of Revenue — Effect — If a person has acquired tenancy/khatedari rights and continued to remain in possession of land for number of years — His rights cannot be cancelled after unreasonable delay in a reference proceedings. 2005 AIHC 3906 (Raj), Rel. on.Specific performance — Suit for — Agreement to sell — Defence that time was essence of contract and plaintiff failed to pay within time — Agreement though specified time for execution of sale deed — Stipulation for forfeiture of earnest money in event of failure to execute sale deed also made — Indicates that time was never intended by parties to be of essence — Defendant could not substantiate plea that time was essence of contract and that it was plaintiffs who avoided to perform their part — Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to decree. 1997 AIR SCW 956, Disting. (2004) 8 SCC 689, 1993 AIR SCW 1371, Relied on.

Khatedari rights — Claim for — Possession of plaintiff tenants on land in dispute on date of commencement of Tenancy Act not proved by any cogent evidence — Mere payment of land revenue would not itself prove khatedari rights of plaintiffs over concerned land. Rajasthan Land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs ActRajasthan Land Revenue Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Construction of Cinemas, Hotels and Establishment of Petrol Pumps Rules (1978), R. 7 — Application for allotment of land — Scrutiny and enquiry of applications — R. 7(1) gives discretion to Collector to send application for advice of Chief town Planner — Word ‘enquiry’ denotes that in scrutinising application, Collector would collect all information about land in question and invite objections from inhabitants residing in village where land was situated —Order of Collector on its face showing that there has not been judicial exercise of discretion and objections from inhabitants were not invited — Collector has not assigned any reason as to why application was not sent to Chief Town Planner for his advice — Order of allotment set aside.Allotment of agricultural land to landless person - Subsequent cancellation - Ground that petitioner was not a landless person at time of allotment as he held a notional share in ancestral agricultural land of his father - Finding recorded by Additional Collector that petitioner was not a landless person was based on misconstruction and misapplication of relevant law on subject - He based his findings on circular of revenue department but completely ignored schedule appended to Rules of 1955 which was then available on statute book - Order cancelling allotment - Constituted error apparent on face of record -Liable to be set asideRajasthan Tenancy Act (3 of 1955), S. 15 — Khatedari rights — Claim for — Petitioner has not proved that he was in possession over disputed land prior to Samvat 2012, period corresponding to commencement of Rajasthan Tenancy Act — Plaintiff could not be recorded as Khatedar in absence of either any allotment letter in his favour or an order of regularisation based on prolonged possession by competent officer — Plaintiff cannot be allowed to take advantage of wrong entries made in his favour — Mutation in name of plaintiff liable to be cancelled. 1987 RRD 2002, Disting.Reference to Collector — Validity — Land in dispute held to be Abadi land in earlier proceedings — Said decision having attained finality would be binding — State being party to said decision it would not open for State to question nature of land or vesting of title in original title holder — Reference proceedings initiated u/S. 82 questioning nature of land, improper.Allotment of land — To be made in consultation with Advisory committee — Specific quorum of Advisory Committee provided in Rules of 1970 — Then contrary to said rule no quorum can be permitted by administrative order — S. 13(3A) specifically provided that quorum for constituting meeting of Advisory Committee shall be of three members of whom one should be from Member of Legislative Assembly, Pradhan or the Sarpanch — However none of them were members of Advisory Committee and therefore allotment so made would be illegal.

aipur Development Authority (Jaipur Region), Building Bye-laws (2000) Bye-law 19.8 — Floor area ratio — Fixation, of — Auction of property — Sale deed stipulating that floor area ratio was 1.0 in terms of bye-laws then existing — Sale deed further providing that buyer gets additional floor area ratio consequent upon any changes in bye-laws — New Bye-laws of 2000 increasing floor area ratio but specifically providing that increase in floor ratio would not apply to plots sold in auction — Effect of such bye-law cannot be ignored — Plea of estoppel cannot be invoked in such case. Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 115. D. B. Civil Spl. Appeal No. 10 of 2005, D/- 2-3-2006 (Raj), Reversed.Modification in Master plan — Notification permitting land use from ecological to residential — Validity — Decision taken in interest of city of Jaipur, growing pressure on land for housing and considering fact that all land was private Khatedari land and was in close vicinity of Jaipur City — Therefore, in order to prevent unplanned housing, JDA allowed housing development on that land — It cannot be said that change of land use was contrary to Secs. 25(1) and 25 (2a) of JDA Act.Closure of public road for development activity — It is necessary to obtain permission of Jaipur Traffic Control Board before digging and closing road — Armed with building permission respondent builder could not have taken upon itself power and authority to close public road — It amount to usurpation of authority by private person — Action of digging/closing of public road without necessary permission held illegal.Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban) Rules (1974), R. 15 — Allotment of land to Indian Oil Corporation for setting up retail outlets — Arbitrariness — Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) is public-sector Undertaking fully owned by Government of India — It is discharging functions of distribution and supply of petrol and other petroleum products thereby serving public demands as per policy laid down by Government which is in furtherance of interest and welfare of public — I.O.C. not required to have permission or licence to set up retail outlets — I.O.C. had allotted ‘A’ sites for setting up retail outlets to physically handicapped candidates and one such site was being run by itself — Action of J.D.A. in deciding to allot these sites to I.O.C. not arbitrary or unreasonable.Power of revocation and modification of permission to development — Competent authority — Permission to development granted by one Commissioner — Cannot be revoked or modified by another Commissioner — Only “Authority” as specified in S.30 could exercise such power — Power given to ‘Authority’ u/S. 30 could not be exercised by Commissioner.Auction of plot — Auction held in violation of interim order directing to maintain status quo by High Court — Subsequent dismissal of writ petition — JDA would be bound by terms and conditions of auction — It can only be cancelled by a declaration made by Civil Court — JDA cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong and allowed to make party suffer which had complied with all terms and conditions of auction and had further invested huge amount — Reallowing JDA to reauction land would put premium on wrong cancellation of registry by JDA.Cancellation of sale deed — Party to registry of sale/lease deed has no right to cancel same and normal course open is to file civil suit for cancellation — In case sale is effected in violation of some statutory mandatory provision of law, consequence given in statute will be taken into consideration — Even then show cause notice is necessary as sale stands complete as soon as the auction is knocked down in favour of party.Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules (1974), Rr. 15, 15-B — Settlement of land — By negotiation through single window clearance system without any advertisement of same for auction — Not improper — Provisions of law pertaining to the JDA Act and Rules of 1974 were fully observed — Decision was taken on basis of recommendation of Board of Infrastructure Development and Investment Promotion (BIDI) which was highest policy-making body of State — No interference.Effect of non-registration - Agreement of sale written on plain paper and not registered - Would not confer any right, title or interest to transferee - Transferee acquiring possession of suit shop in part performance of agreement - Transferee at the most can avail benefit of S. 53-A of T. P. Act only as shield and not as sword. Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), S. 53-A.Cancellation of registered Sale Deed — Inherent power of registering authority — Fraudulent transfer of property — Sale takes place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee — Is void — True owner can nullify sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court — Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered — Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Ss. 31, 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. General Clauses Act

Withholding of Registration of document — Not permissible on instructions of Collector-cum-Addl. Secretary (Revenue) — Reason being, powers of Registering authority is circumscribed by Act to factum of execution and identity of person executing document — Collector has no appellate or revisional powers over Registering Authority under Act — Executive instructions cannot override express provisions of statute.

Sale deed — Endorsement by Sub-Registrar about registration — Presumption as to execution of deed and payment of sale consideration — Rebuttal — Executant lady was illiterate woman who could not read or write — She was issueless widow who observed parda all along while appearing before public authorities etc. — She treated defendant as her son and reposed full confidence in him — Evidence showing lump sum papers were put up before lady for obtaining her signatures and thumb impressions by defendant while she was sitting in rickshaw covered from all sides — Immediately thereafter she went back on pre-arranged taxi for her abode — All these circumstances speak against defendant and presumption in question was held to be rebutted by strong evidence.Registration of document — Proof of due execution of document — Execution of document is not mere signing it — But, signing by way of assent to terms of contract embodied in document — Mere proof or admission that person’s signature appears on document cannot by itself amount to execution of document — Registration does not dispense with necessity of proof of execution when the same is denied.

Registration of document — Proceedings before Registrar are of quasi judicial nature — Signature on document alleged to have been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence and mistake by executant — Registering Authority has no jurisdiction to go into these questions — Aforesaid questions have to be gone into by competent Civil Court — Person who is aggrieved by finding of Registrar can challenge sale deed under S. 31 of Specific Relief Act, in competent civil Court — Civil Court shall go into issue regarding due execution independently, on basis of evidence adduced before it , without in any way being influenced by finding of Registrar.

Document not duly stamped — Admitted in evidence without any objection being raised — Court is not obliged to act upon or enforce it for all purposes thereafter, without requirement of payment of duty and penalty — Court cannot direct execution of a sale deed in specific, performance of an agreement of sale, when agreement is not duly stamped.Admission of document in evidence — Suit for permanent injunction based on allegations of infringement of trade mark — Photo copies of registration certificates of trade mark produced by plaintiff before Court — Endorsement of photo copies by Court and marking them as exhibits subject to objection as to its proof and admissibility — Is erroneous, being contrary to procedure prescribed by O. 13, R. 4. Trade and Merchandise Marks Act (43 of 1958), S. 36.Temporary injunction — Entitlement to — Plaintiff was owner of property by virtue of registered sale deed executed in his favour — Revenue records showed possession of plaintiff and attempts made by defendant to get revenue entries changed failed — Defendant claimed agreement to sell in his favour — Agreement not registered — Thus possession claimed on basis of part performance of agreement to sell, could not be read in evidence for want of registration — Plaintiff held entitled to grant of temporary injunction restraining defendant from interfering with his possession.Oral agreements — Evidence relating to — Admissibility — Agreement to sale — Terms of agreement having been written and registered under Registration Act — Subsequent oral agreements in this respect would be barred under S. 92 of Evidence Act — No evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted.

Estoppel — Revenue proceedings for mutation — Sister—™s statement before revenue authorities relinquishing her rights in favour of her brother — Mutation entry recording name of brother as exclusive owner, held binding on sister — She is estopped from contending contrary to her statement — Plea that there was no waiver, the relinquishment being not in writing and not registered — Not tenable — Sister cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own wrongs — Even if such statement is treated as family arrangement such statement is still binding as family arrangement may be oral and in each case registration is not necessary. AIR 1976 SC 807, Rel. on. Registration Act (16 of 1908), S. 17. Hindu Law

Impleadment of party — Transferee pending suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Transfer made by transferees from defendant without leave of Court — Cannot claim impleadment in view of doctrine of lis pendens — Order impleading them on ground that there was nobody to represent and safeguard their interest — Liable to be set aside.Rejection of plaint — Suit for partition — Plaintiffs claiming to be sons of defendant through his first wife demanded share in suit properties — Plea by defendant that plaintiffs are not his children and even if they are illegitimate children, they have no right over suit properties — Not a sufficient ground to reject plaint — Averments in plaint disclosed cause of action — No material to invoke O. 7, R. 11 — Application for rejection of plaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. AIR 1997 Kant 77, Approved. 2005 (2) Mad LW 487, Foll.

Rejection of plaint - Agreement between appellant and respondent association - Appellant agreed to build and develop property, owned by ~4~ Appellant was to call upon the respondent by notice, to register a lease deed in respect of property, except the ground and first floor - Respondent accordingly called upon but no lease executed - Building completed in 1984 - Letter written on 4.11.84 - Suit for various reliefs filed in July 1990 - Phrase, 'barred by law' - If does not include operation of Limitation Act, 1963 - Receiver found that respondent had executed lease deeds on 3.4.88, 16.7.88 and 19.4.99 - Various claims made. Held that statement in plaint does not show if it is barred by law.

When limitation is the pure question of law and from the pleadings itself it becomes apparent that a suit is barred by limitation, then, of course, is the duty of the court to decide limitation at the outset even in the absence of a plea. However, in cases where the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the suit does not appear to be barred by limitation on the face of it, then the facts necessary to prove limitation must be pleaded, an issue raised and then proved.An application for rejection of the plaint can be filed if the allegations made in the plaint even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety appear to be barred by any law. The question as to whether a suit is barred by limitation or not would, therefore, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. For the said purpose, only the averments made in the plaint are relevant. At this stage, the court would not be entitled to consider the case of the defence.Specific performance of - Respondent entered into agreement both on behalf of himself and his sister in respect of property jointly held by them in half share - Sister refused to accept the agreement - Held that the agreement can be enforced against the respondent in respect of his share of the property - Section 12 not attracted as the case not related to part of the contract but whole of the contract so far as the respondent was concerned.Agreement to sell house property - Agreement by vendor (husband) - Representation that he was absolute owner on partition among brothers and had no male child and that none else has any right over property - Vendee not having any knowledge that vendor's wife was owner to the extent of half share, which devolved upon her due to death of her son - If agreement can be enforced against vendor to the extent of half share. Held that the agreement does not fall under sub-section (2), (3) or (4) of Section 12 of Specific Relief Act, but it can be enforced in part i.e. to the extent of half share.

Presumption of service – Summons sent by registered post on correct address with acknowledgment due – Addressee avoided services and did not accept summons even after having knowledge and information from postman – Addressee would be deemed to have been served and presumption of service in law can be made.Presumption of service of summons — When not available — Despite orders of Court to effect substituted service, summons were not served by affixture — Instead copy of summons was served on brother of defendant — Such service would not only be irregular but illegal, void and contrary to directions of Court — There would be no presumption of service — Ex parte decree liable to be set aside.

Admissibility of unstamped document — Objection not raised earlier when document was admitted in evidence — Admissibility cannot be questioned at subsequent stage — Provisions of S. 61 cannot be invoked before trial Court by raising an objection after document is admitted in evidence but S. 61 of Act is applicable at appellate stage.

Secondary evidence — Copy of document insufficiently stamped — Cannot be permitted to be led in suit even though objection of its admissibility was not taken under Evidence Act — Party can only be allowed to rely on document which is an instrument for purpose of S. 35 of Stamp Act and S. 36 does not apply to secondary evidence adduced in Court, contents of document unstamped or insufficiently stamped.

Objection as to admissibility of document — Required to be decided forthwith and immediately — Postponing decision on such objection would be contrary to object with which CPC was amended in year 2002, namely, to expedite trial — Consequently postponing decision on objection as to admissibility of evidence until final arguments on suit held erroneous.

Insufficient stamp duty — Suit for permanent injunction — Deed of declaration marked on plaintiff’s side — Said deed is unilateral document relating to certain rights — Does not require stamp duty — Document marked without paying adequate stamp duty — Not improper. AIR 2001 SC 1158, (2001) 1 MLJ 1, Relied on.

S. 145 deals with de facto possession and not dejure possession — No oral or documentary evidence to determine actual physical possession of petitioner — Possession was with other party — Merely because of pendency of mutation proceeding it could not be said that other party was not in possession of landed property — Restoration of possession to other party — Not improper.Prevention of breach of peace – Power of Magistrate – Merely because civil suit is pending relating to property in dispute, jurisdiction of Magistrate to proceed u/S. 145 is not taken away – Order of status quo passed by Revenue Court – Hands of Magistrate are not tied for purpose and object of proceedings u/S. 145 to maintain law & order & to prevent breach of peace – Order for attachment of property by Magistrate – Not illegal.Dispute as to property — Appointment of receiver — Magistrate cannot summarily pass an order under Section 146(1) without recording a preliminary order under S. 145(1) — However, taking into consideration events that had taken place, direction issued that present arrangement has to be continued until Magistrate takes requisite steps to preserve public peace and to avoid any law and order problem.Order passed under S. 145 — Mandatory requirements — Order passed without passing of preliminary order under S. 145(1) — Held, not passing of preliminary order under sub-sec. (1) of S. 145 of Cr. P. C. vitiates entire proceedings — Merely sending a notice is itself not sufficient to comply mandatory requirements under S. 145(1) 2004 Cri LJ 91 (Mad) and 2003 Cri LJ 3820 (Mad), Rel. on.Breach of peace — Mere information that a dispute is likely to cause a breach of peace — Is not sufficient to exercise powers u/S. 145 of Cr. P.C. — Person who is in possession of property in dispute cannot be disposed and receiver cannot be appointed merely on basis of such an information — When petitioner himself was in possession of Ashram, it was duty of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Police to give him protection, instead of initiating proceedings under S. 145(1) of Cr. P.C. or passing orders u/S. 146(1) of Cr. P.C.Proceedings for breach of peace — Initiation of — Failure of Magistrate to assign any ground for his satisfaction that dispute had given rise to serious apprehension of breach of peace — Moreover dispute, if any between parties was a private dispute, which did not involve people in locality — Hence, such a dispute could not have been made foundation for drawing of proceeding under S. 145. AIR 1985 SC 472, Rel. on.

Dispute over title of property — Proceedings under S. 145 — Triable issue had been raised by plaintiff — Plaintiff had been residing with his family over structure raised by him over disputed property — Both balance of convenience as also irreparable injury lie in favour of plaintiff — Defendant had been kept out of possession for long time — In circumstances order of injunction in favour of plaintiff would have subserved interest of justice — Direction therefore issued to parties to maintain status quo till decision of Civil Court. Cri. Misc. No. 1709 of 2008, D/- 19-6-2008 (Ker.), Reversed.Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), Ss. 4, 5, 20 — Offence of dishonour of cheque — Evidence on affidavit — S. 145 of N.I. Act has overriding effect on provisions of Criminal P. C. providing contrary procedure for complainant—™s evidence at stage of enquiry or trial — Evidence of complainant may be given on affidavit not only during course of trial but even at pre-summoning stage i.e. before issue of process pursuant to S. 204 of Criminal P.C.

Question of balance of convenience and irreparable loss — Respondent acquiring right of development of suit property — Interim order preventing development would case irreparable loss and injury to respondent since it would not be able to utilize property till suit and appeal is disposed of — Respondent therefore permitted to carry out construction activities over disputed land, however restrained from alienating or transferring property or from creating any third party right therein during pendency of suit.

Unregistered sale deed - Admissibility - Suit for specific performance of contract - Defendantss case that plaintiff fraudulently obtained signatures on sale deed by stating it to be an agreement for sale and hence its registration was refused - Unregistered sale deed tendered as evidence - Plaintiffs case that sale deed executed by defendants not registered due to order of attachment of property - Same held to be inadmissible by trial court - Revision petition - Dismissed by High Court. Held having regard to the proviso to Section 49 the courts below erred in not admitting the unregistered sale deed. Under the proviso unregistered document affecting immovable property and required to be registered by 1908 Act/ Transfer of Property Act, 1882 may be admitted as evidence of contract in a suit for specific performance or of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. Thus an unregistered sale deed was admissible as proof of an oral agreement of sale but not as evidence of a completed sale.

Ready and willing to perform — Pleading and proof — Specific performance — Suit for — Plaintiff has to show that his conduct has been blemishless throughout — Provision imposes personal bar in event of plaintiff failing to do so — In suit, there was claim in respect of particular khasra number which did not form part of agreement — Plaint itself indicated that said khasra number was added later on — There was also an averment to effect that agreement related to a completed sale — Dismissal of suit on ground that requirements of S. 16(c) were not met — No interference. 2005 AIR SCW 4789, 2000 AIR SCW 2554, 1999 AIR SCW 2959, AIR 1968 SC 1355, Rel. on.Impleadment of party — Transferee pending suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Transfer made by transferees from defendant without leave of Court — Cannot claim impleadment in view of doctrine of lis pendens — Order impleading them on ground that there was nobody to represent and safeguard their interest — Liable to be set aside. 2007 (1) AIR Jhar R 254 : AIR 2007 (NOC) 520 (Jhar), Reversed. Impleadment of party — Transferee pending suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Transfer made by transferees from defendant without leave of Court — Cannot claim impleadment in view of doctrine of lis pendens — Order impleading them on ground that there was nobody to represent and safeguard their interest — Liable to be set aside. 2007 (1) AIR Jhar R 254 : AIR 2007 (NOC) 520 (Jhar), Reversed. Plaintiffs alleging that first defendant executed agreement of sale in their favour — Denied by first defendant — Burden to prove that first defendant had executed agreement would be on plaintiff and not on first defendant to prove the negative — Various circumstances when taken together, creating doubt about the genuineness of agreement and dislodge effect of evidence adduced by plaintiff — Dismissal of suit — Was proper.

The discretion u/S. 34 which the Court has to exercise is a judicial discretion. That discretion has to be exercised on well-settled principles. Therefore, the Court has consider the nature of obligation in respect of which performance is sought, circumstances under which the decision came to be made, the conduct of the parties and the effect of the Court granting the decree. In such cases, the Court has to look at the contract. The Court has to ascertain whether there exists an element of mutuality in the contract. If there is absence of mutuality the Court will not exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiff. Even if, want of mutuality is regarded as discretionary and not as an absolute bar to specific performance the Court has to consider the entire conduct of the parties in relation to the subject-matter and in case of any disqualifying circumstances the Court will not grant the relief prayed for.

Suit for specific performance — Agreement to sell — Vendor having no authority to sell property at time of execution of agreement with plaintiff — Agreement has no legal sanction — Suit on basis thereof is incompetent — Subsequent sale of property to third party — Third party found to be bona fide purchaser for value without notice — Sale is protected by S. 19(b) — Refusal of relief of specific performance to plaintiff — Proper.Agreement to sell — Specific performance of — Contract made by agent of purchasers — Purchasers knowing fully well that owner of property would not sell property to them in view of earlier disputes between them entered into agreement with third person as their agent — That third person by misrepresenting that he wanted to purchase property for himself obtained consent of owners of property — Such consent obtained by fraud or misrepresentation is not free consent — Such contract is voidable at instance of owner — Fact that third person was agent of purchasers was disclosed for first time in notice for specific performance — Hence even under S. 231 owners can refuse to fulfill contract — Decree for specific performance liable to be set aside.Agreement to sell share in coparcenary property — Relief of specific performance — Grant of — Vendor cosharer entering into contract in respect of his share as also on behalf of other co-sharer — Denial on part of other co-sharers to sell their share on ground of no authority being given to vendor co-sharer — In such case decree for specific performance can be granted to extent of share of vendor co-sharer — After purchase of share of vendor, vendee would step into shoes of vendor and would become co-sharer and can always seek partition.Void agreement — Defendant, under belief that virtue of allotment order itself he had authority to sell away property, which he got allotted from Development Authority — Allotment order showed by defendant to plaintiff and the latter believed that defendant had authority to sell away said property in her favour and under that belief she agreed to purchase same — Both plaintiff and defendant proceeded with transaction under a mistake as to fact that defendant had authority under said allotment order to sell property and, therefore, they entered into said agreement of sale — Said mistake of fact was mutual between both parties besides being essential for said agreement — By virtue of provisions of S. 20 said agreement of sale became void and unenforceable in law.

Hindu Law - – Joint family property – Alienation by Karta is permissible for legal necessity — Karta executing agreement to sell – He cannot subsequently avoid execution of sale deed on ground that his wife and son also had share in joint family property – Question whether sale was for legal necessity would arise after alienation was challenged – If sale was for legal necessity, it would bind every one including son – If aggrieved, son may seek to have the alienation set aside.Limitation Act (36 of 1963) - Art. 58 — Suit for declaration — Limitation —Sale deedd executed by power of attorney holder — Limitation for challenging the power of attorney and the sale deed was to be from the date of registration of the said document, especially when, possession was also handed over to vendors in pursuance to the sale deed and mutation was also duly sanctioned — Suit filed after expiry of 3 years — Barred by limitation.Temporary injunction to restrain alienation of property — Suit for cancellation of sale deed pending — Power of Attorney holder misused his authority and executed sale deed in favour of third party — Third party was in physical possession of property — Court restrained third party from alienating land as agricultural land was being sold for purposes of colonisation Possibility of fraud also not ruled out since Power of Attorney holder had execute sale deed in favour of his wife.

Temporary injunction — Refusal — Validity — Suit for cancellation of sale deeds — Purchaser under sale deed in question was close relative and adopted son of seller, his right to sell his property was not in dispute — Purchaser had sufficient funds to purchase said agricultural land in question and adoption prima facie appeared to be genuine — Plaintiffs did not have a prima facie case in their favour for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendants from further alienating property or to direct status quo of suit property to be maintained — Validity of sale deed in question will be determined on basis of further evidence — Refusal to grant temporary injunction, properCourt fees — Determination — Suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed — Suit property was agricultural land — Word —œvalue of the property— and not —market value— of property is used in S. 6(iv)(ha) — Hence value of property for which sale deed was executed would be relevant and not its market value for determining Court fees.

Condonation of delay — Sufficient cause — —œLiberal approach— — Does not mean doing injustice to opposite party — Application to set aside abatement — Made belatedly — Ground raised for condonation not sufficient and also unbelievable — Delay cannot be condoned — Provisions of O. 22, R. 9 cannot be so construed so as to make it redundant. Highly belated appeal — Against award of reference Court — Condonation of delay — Appellant beneficiary informed about decision taken by Govt. to not file appeal — Yet indulging in making representation to Govt. — Filing appeal long after lapse of limitation — Beneficiary thus was not diligent in availing remedy of appeal — Delay not liable to be condoned.S. 5 — Delay in filing revision — Condonation of — “Sufficient cause’ — Delay of 36 days sought to be explained by bald statement that petitioner was suffering from viral fever and doctor had advised bed rest — No medical certificate produced to that effect — Explanation not credible — Delay cannot be condoned.

Review — “Error apparent on face of record” — Will not encompass an error which is not self evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning — Re-hearing and correction of erroneous decision — Not permissible under O. 47, R. 1 — Review Petition cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.Review — Judgment in question — Cannot be reconsidered on self same grounds just because another conclusion is possible — Scope of review cannot be confused with that of appeal. Error apparent on face of record — Alleged error far from self evident — Can be established only by lengthy and complicated arguments — Not an error apparent on face of record.Power of review — Exercise of — Is permissible on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of person seeking review or could not be produced by him at time when order was made — It can be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on face of record is found — But it cannot be exercised on ground that decision was erroneous on merits.Causing death by negligence — Proof — Deceased was crushed underneath left rear tyres of truck — Accident had taken place at crowded place — How deceased came in contact with rear left tyres of truck and was crushed, not stated by witness — Prosecution had not examined any independent eye-witness — No necessary facts on record to prove rash or negligent driving by truck driver — Acquittal of accused, proper

Causing death by negligence — Proof — Accused allegedly driving tempo-truck at high speed hit motor cyclist — Path of movement of vehicles must be sought to be established in course of investigation and not be left open to ambiguity and doubt — Questions whether motor cyclist was taking turn on a green light or a red light and so too whether petitioner was driving tempo/truck crossing green light or a red light remained unanswered as site plan had not been exhibited — Non-examination of investigating officer resulted in prejudice being caused to accused — Testimony of head constable that accused was driving vehicle at “high speed” — Expression “high speed” is an unclear expression — No evidence to conclusively indicate that accused was driving vehicle in rash and negligent manner — Accused is entitled to be acquitted. 1998 SCC (Cri) 1508 Folletting aside ex parte decree — Expression sufficient cause— — Meaning — Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. Words and Phrases — Sufficient cause— — Meaning. Notice served by registered post as well as by publication in newspaper — Presumption of service — Presumption cannot be rebutted by bald statement made by wife that she was living at different address with her brother — Respondent wife made no attempt to establish there had been fraud or collusion between husband and postman — No case that “National Herald†daily newspaper published from Delhi did not have wide circulation in Delhi or in area where wife was residing with her brother — Ex parte decree, not liable to be set aside.

Neither the transferor 'J' nor the transferee 'S' took steps for incorporating change of ownership in the certificate of registration. Hence, 'J' must be deemed to continue as the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of the Act and was therefore equally liable for payment of compensation. As insurance policy was in his name he would be indemnified and the claim would shift to the insurer. Temporary injunction — Suit for partition — Plaintiffs on one side claimed that they were entitled to property as Class II heirs of deceased and defendant on other side claimed property on basis of Will — Issue as to who would be entitled, and shares to which they would be entitled to, required to be decided by trial Court — During pendency of proceedings before trial Court, property needs to be protected — Defendant restrained from transferring or from selling property in dispute, but with liberty to carry out repairs for maintenance of property.Grant of bail — Denial — Legality — Petitioner accused alleged to have committed offence under Ss. 447 and 302 of Penal Code — Although accused was minor, his application seeking bail was rejected — Plea by accused that gravity of offence committed cannot be ground for declining bail to juvenile as S. 12 was mandatory — Was tenable — As per S. 12 bail should be granted to juvenile irrespective of nature or gravity of offence — And in absence of exceptional circumstances for denying bail — Order rejecting bail to accused was liable to be set aside.Temporary injunction — Refusal — Validity — Suit filed for declaration of sale deed as ineffective and to return Land in dispute back to plaintiff — In such case, in order to protect interest of parties, trial Court should have directed that parties should maintain status quo — Such an order would have prevented emergence of third party rights and also emergence of future litigation — Refusal to grant injunction, improper.Dishonour of Cheque — Signed blank cheque issued by drawer-accused — Extent of liability disputed — As yet, drawee/complainant filled-up cheque for an amount not admitted by drawer — Accused able to prove that there is bona fide dispute with regard to extent of liability — Dishonour of cheque under such circumstance does not attract prosecution u/S. 138 of N. I. Act — Dismissal of complaint is proper.Dishonour of Cheque — Words —œfor discharge of any debt or other liability— in S. 138 — Should be interpreted to mean current existing or past ascertained liabilities — Appellant-Company supplied products on credit to dealers — Dealers required to deposit signed blank cheques as a security for credit supply — Such cheques issued in respect of future liabilities not in existence as on the date of cheque would not attract prosecution u/S. 138 of N.I. Act. AIR 2003 SC 3014, Disting.Dishonour of cheque — Statutory presumption is in favour of holder that cheque has been issued for discharge of debt or liability — Defence of accused has to be specific as to why cheque was issued — If it was issued for purpose of security or any other purpose then cheque issued did not come within purview of S. 138 of Act.

An order passed by a person lacking inherent jurisdiction would be a nullity. The principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or even res judicata which are procedural in nature would have no application in a case where an order has been passed by the Tribunal/Court which has no authority in that behalf. Any order passed by a Court without jurisdiction would be coram non judice being a nullity, the same ordinarily should not be given effect to. However, a distinction must be made between a decree passed by a Court which has no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction in the light of Section 21 and a decree passed by a Court having no jurisdiction in regard to the subject-matter of the suit. Whereas in the former case, the appellate Court may not interfere with the decree unless prejudice is shown, ordinarily the second category of the cases would be interfered with.

Amendment of written statement — Application filed after commencement of trial — No justifiable and cogent reasons for delay in moving amendment application given — Finding recorded that facts sought to be incorporated by amendment were in knowledge of petitioner and that amendment if allowed would materially change nature of dispute — Rejection of amendment application, proper.Defendants by way of amendment making all efforts to build up different but incompatible aspects of defence and in that exercise have placed on record several doubtful documents — Amendment as prayed for was not appear bona fide and allowing same would be causing serious prejudice to plaintiff — Amendment cannot be allowed.Withdrawal of admission — Permissibility — Admission once made is binding on party — In another case also admission written statements were filed — It cannot be said that written statement was due to misrepresentation or fraud as alleged — No details of fraud, misrepresentation given — Admission cannot be withdrawn by way of amendment.Withdrawal of admission — Permissibility — Suit for partition — By way of amendment defendant-petitioner wanted to bring on fact that all shops were constructed on land which was not ancestral — Proposed amendment had effect of withdrawal of clear admission made in written statement by defendant that shops were constructed on land which came into his share — Rejection of amendment, proper.

Deceased died due to motor-cycle accident — Back tier of vehicle burst and deceased fell down and received head injury — Tribunal dismissed claim application on ground that it was case of self accident of owner and driver of vehicle and no third party involved — Errone-ous — Whenever any accident occurs causing death or injury to a person in course of use of vehicle jurisdiction of Claims Tribu-nal arises — Matter remitted to Tribunal.

Condonation of delay — Appellant illiterate villagers going place to place for work — Getting knowledge of order passed against them only when they reached their village — Appeal filed immediately on knowing that they should file appeal — Delay stands sufficiently explained — Dismissal of second appeal on ground of limitation — Improper.

not—™ from written statement — It amounts to withdrawal of admission already taken — Amendment cannot be allowed.

Although no period of limitation has been prescribed for exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the same would not mean that the suo motu power can be exercised at any time. Revisional jurisdiction should ordinarily be exercised within a period of three years having regard to the purport in terms of the Act. In any event, the same should not exceed the period of five years

S. 65 — Secondary evidence — Photocopy of document — Admissibility — Executor merely admitted his signatures on photocopy of power of attorney but denied its content thereof — Court without considering probative value of contents of document, decreed suit for specific performance — Improper.Photostat copy of will — Admissibility — Loss of original copy — Proof — Date on which plaintiff had handed over original will to his counsel not given in petition — Document with endorsement of officer in Nagar Palika, who had compared copy of will filed in Nagar Palika with original will taken by plaintiff, not produced — Witness did not remember as to when original will was shown to officer in Nagar Palika — Plaintiff thereby had not proved loss of original will — Secondary evidence in shape of Photostat copy of original will, would not be admissible in evidence.

Execution of Will — When said to be proved — Original Will was not at all produced before Court — No pleading or evidence of loss of original Will — Even otherwise copy of such Will was not produced — Party even did not seek to prove Will by secondary evidence — Since no amount of oral evidence about execution of any Will would be admissible unless original was produced or copy was produced and loss of original was proved — In such circumstances, Will executed by deceased cannot be said to be proved.

Certified copy of the Will is not a public doucment within meaning of S. 74 — Not admissible per se in evidence — Consequently certified copy of Will produced on record of case cannot be presumed to be primary document which could be adduced in evidence and same could be proved only by leading secondary evidence after taking permission of Court and proving loss, destruction etc. of document.

Filing of frivolous suit — Amounts to abuse of process of Court — Such suit cannot be dismissed under O. 7, R. 11 since grounds mentioned in O. 7, R. 11 are that suit is barred by law or it does not disclose cause of action or proper Court-fees had not been paid — But Court is not helpless and can invoke powers under S. 151 and dismiss suit under S. 151.Application for rejection of plaint — Ground that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute — Rejection — Validity — Dispute relating to securities transaction — Under rules and by-laws framed by Bombay Stock Exchange for any dispute between Broker, Sub-Broker and client, specific provision of arbitration was provided and dispute was required to be sent for arbitration before Arbitration Committee constituted by Bombay Stock Exchange — By-laws of Bombay Stock Exchange not considered while deciding application under O. 7, R. 11 — Improper — Matter remitted for decision afresh.Return of plaint — Suit for permanent injunction — Suit related to agricultural land and was not triable by Civil Court — Then Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to dismiss the suit also — At the most suit could be returned to plaintiff for presentation of same in Competent Court having jurisdiction.

Court-fee — Suit for declaration that sale deed executed by plaintiff—™s father is null and void and for joint possession — Is not a suit for cancellation of sale deed — Court-fee need not be paid on sale consideration mentioned in sale deeds — Court-fee payable is computable under Section 7(iv)(c). Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 34.Declaratory decree — Suit for cancellation of sale deed, and general power of attorney as being null and void and for injunction against defendant — Suit cannot be considered as one for mere declaratory relief — Trial Court without referring to Ss. 38 and 26 of Act erroneously accepted Court fee paid by plaintiff by as per S. 24 of Act — Matter remanded to trial Court to determine correct Court fee payable as regards market value of suit property as on date of suit.

Ancestral property — Succession prior to 1994 amendment — Father having seven sons three daughters — His ancestral property prior to his death would be divided in eight equal parts i.e. 1/8th for himself and 1/8th each for the seven sons — Each of the sons will get 1/8th share in the total property — On the demise of father his 1/8th share will go to his widow — It would be only on the demise of his widow the seven sons and three daughters will get equal share in the share held by her — On her death the seven sons and three daughters thus will each get 1/10 share from the 1/8th share of the total property and, therefore, each one of them will have 1/8th share in the total property — Order of Court making 11 parts of total property inherited by father by treating 11 coparcener in all i.e. father, seven son and three daughters not proper as married daughters could not get equal shares with sons prior to (1994) amendment introducing chapter II-A consisting of Ss. 29A to 29C

Joint family property — Suit to set aside sale — Ground that it was not for legal necessity — Sale in question by plaintiff’s father — Plaintiff’s father inheriting property along with his sister — Land partitioned and recorded in name of each — Loses character of joint family property — S. 6 has not application — Plaintiff’s father and his sisters were tenants in common — Each had right to transfer his share of land — Suit liable to be dismissed

Setting aside of ex parte decree — It is knowledge of ‘date of hearing’ and not knowledge of pendency of suit which is relevant for second proviso to O. 9, R. 13 — No summon of application under S. 6 of Act of 1957 for specific date was served upon petitioner — Presumption of service of summon upon him cannot be drawn only on basis of pendency of application under S. 6 of Act — Ex parte decree passed liable to be set aside. AIR 2002 SC 2370, Rel. on.

Effect of substituting or adding new plaintiff or defendant - Suit filed against dead person - Application for substituting legal heirs - Error committed due to a mistake made in good faith - Held that its effect is not to begin from the date on which the application for the purpose was made, or from the date of permission but from the date of the suit, deeming it to have been correctly instituted on an earlier date than the date of making the application

, CPC, pleas taken by the defendant in the written statement are wholly irrelevant. The whole plaint has to be read and if it discloses no cause of action, then, the plaint as a whole, or part of the plaint can be rejected. In the instant case, the defendant had filed application under O. 7, r. 11, after filing of rejoinder by the plaintiff respondent. The trial Court, after perusing the pleadings of the averments of the plaint as well as reply and rejoinder, reached to the conclusion that the matter requires proper adjudication because, prima facie, case was made out from the plain reading of the plaint and therefore rejection of application filed by defendant under O. 7,

½ years — No limitation prescribed for filing an application u/O. 9, R. 7 — It is open to Court to condone absence of defendant at any stage of proceedings — However only at stage when matter posted for judgment after completing trial proceedings, application filed u/O. 9, R. 7 cannot be maintained.

third party—™ liability — Deceased succumbed to injuries sustained while attempting to board goods carrier from behind — Evidence shows that driver of vehicle enabled deceased board vehicle and for whatever reasons suddenly moved vehicle and in such process deceased fell down and succumbed to injuries sustained by him — Even though driver carried out an unauthorized act of carrying passenger in goods vehicle — Owner cannot be absolved of its vicarious liability for negligent careless act of driver — Deceased covered very much within phrase —

Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) - O. 7, R. 11(d) — Re-jection of plaint — Ground of limitation — If a suit on face of it is barred by limitation it can be rejected under O. 7, R. 11 of Code — However question whether suit is within limitation is to be considered only on basis of averments in plaint. If a suit is on the face of it barred by limitation it can be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code. In such a case it is not necessary to push the parties to trial merely because limitation is mixed question of fact and law. But it does not follow that the objections of the defendant to the date shown in the plaint as the date of accrual of cause of action can be looked into at that stage. The question whether the suit is within limitation or not would have to be considered by the Court for the purpose of application for rejection of plaint only on the basis of averments in the plaint.Limitation Act (36 of 1963) - Art. 54 — Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 20 — Suit for specific performance of contract — Starting point of limitation — If date is not fixed in contract limitation starts from date of refusal on part of defendant to perform contract — Refusal requires demand by plaintiff and if demand is refused, that gives cause of action — Refusal to re-deliver possession by defendant will not give rise to cause of action — Cause of action was for demand of execution of sale deed — Plaint does not show as to when demand was made by plaintiff for registering sale deed in his favour — Burden is on plaintiff to show that there was embargo to be lifted by Govt. and it had prevented plaintiff from seeking registration of the sale — Waiting for 19 years, does not give right to plaintiff to sue for specific performance, but for penalty of Rs. 30,000/-

the merits of the case can be decided before the delivery of the judgment and if the court comes to the conclusion that the court-fee paid is deficient, it may defer the pronouncement of the judgment and ask the party to pay the deficit court-fee as per valuation of the Court, Thus, the multiplicity of the proceedings delay in the disposal of the suit and calling and recalling the witnesses every time can be avoided and it will serve the cause of justice and the cause of litigants also

Eviction of tenant — Ground that landlord required suit shop for running his own business — Earlier landlord used to sit with his son in latter’s shop but subsequently there had been some disputes between them and relations between them became strained resulting thereby his son declined to allow his father to sit in shop in which his son had business of trading in cement — Bona fide need proved — Tenant liable to be evicted.

Rejection of plaint — Application for — Ground that suit for injunction was barred by law — Suit premises given on lease by general body of society to defendant by way of resolution — Prima facie relationship of landlord and tenant established — Suit filed for injunction was in effect for seeking revocation of said resolution and dispossession — Such a suit could only be filed before Rent Tribunal — Civil Court’s jurisdiction would be barred — Plaint liable to be rejected.

Suit for eviction — Ground of personal bona fide necessity — Death of landlord during pendency of suit — Bona fide need would continue even after his death as it was claimed for himself and his son — Subsequent events in form of sale of said property would not ipso facto upset the decree — Attornment in favour of purchaser would be automatic — Purchaser of property would be entitled for vacant possession. 1987 (Supp) SCC 630 and 1998 DNJ (Raj) 293, Distg.

Suit for eviction — Ground of sub- letting — Suit property let out to original tenant prior to her entering into partnership firm — Subsequently he shifted to London and never returned — Partnership managed by other defendant and was never registered with Registrar of Firms — Partnership was thus drawn up merely to provide a cover and to make believe that original tenant had not parted with possession of suit premises in favour of defendant — Subletting proved — Eviction ordered, not improper.Bona fide need — Petition filed taking grounds of bona fide need and that property in question was taken on rent for residential purpose but, later on, school was opened in said premises and tenant started using said property for commercial purpose — Finding of fact recorded that premises was let out for commercial purpose — On such case Chapters II and III of Act will apply and landlord would be entitled for eviction decree upon ground of bona fide necessity.

Suit for eviction — Personal bona fide necessity — Landlord having factory for manufacturing furniture and handicrafts required suit shop for opening their showroom of furniture and handicrafts — Plea that no books of accounts were produced before trial Court to show loss caused on account of non-setting up showroom, not tenable — Since sufferance of actual loss of non-setting up of showroom of furniture and handicrafts was not necessary as such loss could not be measured in terms of money nor it was recorded in books of accounts — Suit decreed on ground of personal bona fide need, not improper.Commercial premises — Suit for eviction — Bona fide need — Landlord had retired from Govt. service and he wanted to do his own business in suit premises — Death of landlord during pendency of appeal — Requirement of premises by his legal heirs namely widow will not extinguish on his death — Fact that widow was getting pension and her sons were also in employment, cannot be ground to deny her possession — Even widow has her own independent right of survival and earn her livelihood after death of her husband — Eviction ordered.Suit for eviction — Default in payment of rent — Rent provisionally determined in terms of S. 13(3) of 1950 Act — But no order passed by trial court in suit and defence of tenant was not struck off — Subsequent withdrawal of suit after enforcement of Act of 2001 — No provision akin to provisions of S. 13(3) to 13(5) of the Act of 1950, providing for determination of rent provisionally or striking out defence on account of non payment of amount determined provisionally or monthly rent subsequent thereto, incorporated in Act of 2001 — Question of striking out the defence of the tenant in proceedings for eviction u/S. 9 of the Act of 2001 would not arise — Even if, any such right had accrued to petitioner during pendency of eviction proceedings before trial Court under Act of 1950, the same cannot be enforced in fresh eviction proceedings lodged under provisions of S. 9 of Act of 2001.Amendment in written statement — Permissibility — Crutial date is date of petition — Suit for eviction of tenant from shop — Amendment sought in appeal to incorporate plea that ground of bona fide necessity ceased to exist due to appointment of son of landlord in Bank — Fact of appointment was not in existence at stage of trial — If such application will be allowed at appellate stage then certainly at every stage after adjudication, parties will take plea of amendment and no trial Court will be able to adjudicate matter finally and there will be no end of dispute — Said ground cannot be allowed to take away ground of personal bona fide necessity of landlord — Amendment cannot be allowed. AIR 2005 SC 1274, Rel. on. AIR 2007 SC 2511, AIR 2002 SC 3369, Disting

Alleged encroachment of suit land of appellant Board — Respondents’ land adjacent to suit land — Application for demarcation by appellant before trial Court, was rejected — Application for appointment of Local Commissioner for demarcation of suit land filed by appellant before Appellate Court was also rejected — High Court did not consider whether Local Commissioner should be appointed for purpose of demarcation — Summarily dismissed second appeal on basis of concurrent findings of fact that Board failed to prove encroachment by respondents — Order of High Court liable to be set aside. R. S. A. No. 3374 of 2003, D/- 16-1-2007 (Punj. and Har.) - Reversed.Local Commissioner — Can be appointed even at appellate stage — Boundary disputes — Encroachment — Earlier demarcation not carried out in accordance with law — Application seeking appointment of local Commissioner to demarcate land in question to ascertain encroachment — Rejected on technical ground, not proper — Appellate Court directed to appoint local Commissioner and accordingly decide issue of encroachment.

Appointment of second Commissioner — Permissibility — Application for appointment of second Commissioner on ground that first Commissioner while preparing report relied upon sketch which was suspended by High Court — Held, proper course with petitioner is to request trial Court to direct first Commissioner himself to make a local inspection again or to convince trial Court about unacceptability of first report and seek appointment of second Commissioner

Appointment of Commissioner — Plaintiff seeking injunction against defendants from disturbing plaintiffs running vegetable market — Defendants denied existence of such market — Application filed by plaintiffs for appointment of an advocate-Commissioner — Commissioner can be appointed for purpose of ascertaining state of things that may be asserted and denied by rival parties — Rejection of application by trial Court on ground that plaintiffs could not seek to fish out evidence or establish a state of things — Improper.

Adverse possession — Is a question of fact which has to be specifically pleaded and proved — plaintiff neither asserted plea of adverse possession nor any issue was framed by trial Court in this regard — None of the parties lead any evidence on point — Held, appellate Court by erroneously making out an altogether new case which was not pleaded set aside judgment passed by trial Court and decreed suit filed by plaintiff.

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.

Suit for Specific performance of contract - Limitation -- Appellant entering into an agreement for sale of his land to respondent in October 1982 - Respondent upon paying certain amount as earnest money put in physical possession of the land -Sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered upon disposal of an appeal pending in High Court - As per the sale agreement respondent was to repay an amount of Rs. 42,000 to a bank being the loan taken by the appellant from the bank - Bank having filed a suit for recovery appellant issuing notice to respondent on 24-4-1984 directing him to pay the loan amount to the bank and get the sale deed executed within 15 days failing which the agreement shall stand cancelled - Respondent depositing an amount of only Rs. 10,000 in the bank on 25-5-1985 - On 26-9-1989 respondent filing a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale - Trial court decreeing the suit - Lower appellate court however holding the suit to be barred by limitation - On further appeal High Court holding that since time was not the essence of the contract the suit was not barred and accordingly remitting the matter to the lower appellate court - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that since the suit was not filed within three years from the date of expiry of the period of fifteen days specified in the notice dated 24-4-1984 it was barred by limitation.Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale - Suit filed almost 29 years after the sale agreement - Defendant disputing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court and also taking the stand that the suit was barred by limitation - Trial court holding that it had jurisdiction to try the suit and dismissing the suit as being barred by limitation - Lower appellate court as well as High Court affirming the decision and dismissing the appeal - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that the trial court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. Applicability of Section 46 of the Contract Act and several other pleas available to the defendants which were required to be considered, cannot enable the dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation. Matter accordingly remitted to trial court for fresh consideration of all the issues.Agreement for sale of property - Form of contract and execution of deeds - Performance of contract - Limitation for raising the plea of specific performance - Private limited company (company) owning certain property entering into an agreement with first respondent for sale - Agreement for sale dated 18.4.1971 -Company receiving advance amount for sale - In May 1971 company filing a suit against some persons claiming ownership over the property and obtaining a consent decree on 3.5.1978 - Thereafter first respondent writing letters on 12-11-1979, 11.1.1980, 5.1.1981 and 8.10.1984 asking the company to execute and register the sale deed - Company also assuring the first respondent that it would do the needful - However on 21.8.1985 company refusing to execute and register the deed on the plea that the same became barred by limitation - First respondent filing suit for specific performance in 1985 - During pendency of the suit company selling the property to appellant - Appellant contesting the suit and disputing its maintainability - Trial court decreeing the suit - Appeals there against dismissed by the lower appellate court as well as High Court. Dismissing further appeal held that since the period of limitation got extended by conduct of the parties the suit was not barred. Execution of the agreement by the company in favour of the first respondent had not been denied at any stage. Even in the absence of any resolution on the part of the company or official seal of the company in the agreement the contract could not be held to be invalid or illegal. Decretal of the suit for specific performance consequently upheld.

Rejection of plaint — On ground that second suit was filed without obtaining leave under O. 2, R. 2 — Second suit was filed for specific performance of agreement — First suit was filed for injunction — Cause of action was substantively same in both suits as both suits were based on agreement executed between plaintiff and defendants — Plaintiff omitted prayer for specific performance in first suit — Second suit was required to be filed after obtaining leave under O. 2, R. 2 — Suit was filed without obtaining leave under O. 2, R. 2 — Rejection of plaint proper.

Rejection of plaint — Suit for specific performance of contract — Case of defendants that Memorandum of Understanding entered into between parties is void and illegal — Civil court is entitled to take cognizance of every dispute of civil nature unless law prohibits it either expressly or impliedly from entertaining the dispute — Party seeking rejection of plaint under O. 7, R. 11 must show provision of law prohibiting civil court from entertaining the dispute or that an alternate forum or remedy is provided — Failure to show any such provision of law — Rejection of plaint not proper.

Tribunal would be empowered to execute certificate of recovery of possession issued on basis of compromise. tribunal is not precluded from applying principles underlying provisions of CPC for finding out truth — If there is difference between the parties on material question of law and facts, then, in civil proceedings for just decision of matter, it is always advisable to frame issues/points of determination.

Registration of sale agreement — Whether mandatory for seeking injunction — Applicant sought injunction on ground that he had purchased suit property and paid part consideration — Unregistered sale deed showing delivery of possession to applicant on payment of 85% sale consideration — Reliability — Had the applicant sought benefit of part performance under S. 53-A of T. P. Act registration of sale deed would have been mandatory — Since no such benefit is claimed, unregistered sale deed can be relied upon by Court in an injunction application.

Registration of sale deed — Validity — Suit for specific performance on basis of unregistered sale deed was pending before Civil Court — Jurisdiction of Civil Court is plenary in nature and, therefore, all questions in respect of execution of documents and receipt of sale consideration or execution of agreement are issues, which are required to be examined in civil suit — Invocation of jurisdiction of Registrar under S. 73 of Act would be abuse of process of law — Therefore, order passed by Registrar directing registration of sale deed during pendency of matter before Civil Court would be improper.

Suit for declaration and partition - Petitioner along with his brother inherited suit property from his deceased father - Mutation of land was recorded in favour of his brother only - Evidence on record so also in Panchayat election list name of petitioner was shown as son of his father - Mutation attested in favour of his brother cannot deprive petitioner of his right - Finding that petitioner was son of his father and thus entitled to one half share from land in dispute - Is proper.

Agreement to sell — Suit for specific performance — Readiness and willingness — Plaintiff vendee not pleading that he was ready and willing to pay balance amount or that he made any effort to pay the same — Not entitled to relief of specific performance. (B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 16 (c) — Agreement to sell — Suit for specific performance — Subsequent purchaser of property who were defendant in suit — Entitled to raise plea that plaintiff (prior purchaser) was never ready and willing to perform his part of contract. AIR 2000 SC 860, Rel. on.

Presumption as to document 30 years old — Sale deed — Date of execution of document was mentioned as Paushsudi Ekam Samvat 1890 — Document revealed name of seller and purchaser and consideration was also mentioned in it — Names of witnesses were also mentioned and also as to by whom it was written — Possession and ownership of grandfather of defendant on basis of said document can be said to have been proved. 1957 Raj LW 267, Rel. on.

Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Alternative relief of refund of earnest money — Grant of — Suit property purchased by bona fide purchaser during pendency of suit having no knowledge of prior agreement — Lapse of 19 years — Held, after lapse of so many years property which was sold to bona fide purchaser cannot be ordered to be re-sold to plaintiff prior purchaser — Relief of return of earnest money granted.

Specific performance — Suit for — Agreement for sale between plaintiff and defendants owners — Defendants subsequently sold suit property in favour of appellants — Impleadment of appellants who are subsequent purchasers — Restriction however placed on appellants that they cannot raise plea of readiness and willingness — Proper — Only issue that can be adjudicated in suit is whether appellants were bona fide purchasers for value without notice 2000 AIR SCW 442, Disting.Sale deed — Cancellation — Deed executed when transferor was suffering from alcoholic Psychosis — Fact of his mental illness proved by medical certificate — Deed in question also showing that valuable land was sold at very paltry amount — Sale being by person who was not of sound mind — Liable to be set aside — Unsoundness of mind of transferor — Is finding of fact — No interference permissible in second appeal. 2001 (3) Ker LT 580, Reversed.Temporary injunction — Refusal — Validity — Suit for cancellation of sale deeds — Purchaser under sale deed in question was close relative and adopted son of seller, his right to sell his property was not in dispute — Purchaser had sufficient funds to purchase said agricultural land in question and adoption prima facie appeared to be genuine — Plaintiffs did not have a prima facie case in their favour for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendants from further alienating property or to direct status quo of suit property to be maintained — Validity of sale deed in question will be determined on basis of further evidence — Refusal to grant temporary injunction, proper.

Specific performance — Suit for — Agreement to sell — Defence that time was essence of contract and plaintiff failed to pay within time — Agreement though specified time for execution of sale deed — Stipulation for forfeiture of earnest money in event of failure to execute sale deed also made — Indicates that time was never intended by parties to be of essence — Defendant could not substantiate plea that time was essence of contract and that it was plaintiffs who avoided to perform their part — Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to decree. 1997 AIR SCW 956, Disting. (2004) 8 SCC 689, 1993 AIR SCW 1371, Relied on.

Rajasthan Land Revenue Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Construction of Cinemas, Hotels and Establishment of Petrol Pumps Rules (1978), R. 7 — Application for allotment of land — Scrutiny and enquiry of applications — R. 7(1) gives discretion to Collector to send application for advice of Chief town Planner — Word ‘enquiry’ denotes that in scrutinising application, Collector would collect all information about land in question and invite objections from inhabitants residing in village where land was situated —Order of Collector on its face showing that there has not been judicial exercise of discretion and objections from inhabitants were not invited — Collector has not assigned any reason as to why application was not sent to Chief Town Planner for his advice — Order of allotment set aside.Allotment of agricultural land to landless person - Subsequent cancellation - Ground that petitioner was not a landless person at time of allotment as he held a notional share in ancestral agricultural land of his father - Finding recorded by Additional Collector that petitioner was not a landless person was based on misconstruction and misapplication of relevant law on subject - He based his findings on circular of revenue department but completely ignored schedule appended to Rules of 1955 which was then available on statute book - Order cancelling allotment - Constituted error apparent on face of record -Liable to be set asideRajasthan Tenancy Act (3 of 1955), S. 15 — Khatedari rights — Claim for — Petitioner has not proved that he was in possession over disputed land prior to Samvat 2012, period corresponding to commencement of Rajasthan Tenancy Act — Plaintiff could not be recorded as Khatedar in absence of either any allotment letter in his favour or an order of regularisation based on prolonged possession by competent officer — Plaintiff cannot be allowed to take advantage of wrong entries made in his favour — Mutation in name of plaintiff liable to be cancelled. 1987 RRD 2002, Disting.

Allotment of land — To be made in consultation with Advisory committee — Specific quorum of Advisory Committee provided in Rules of 1970 — Then contrary to said rule no quorum can be permitted by administrative order — S. 13(3A) specifically provided that quorum for constituting meeting of Advisory Committee shall be of three members of whom one should be from Member of Legislative Assembly, Pradhan or the Sarpanch — However none of them were members of Advisory Committee and therefore allotment so made would be illegal.

aipur Development Authority (Jaipur Region), Building Bye-laws (2000) Bye-law 19.8 — Floor area ratio — Fixation, of — Auction of property — Sale deed stipulating that floor area ratio was 1.0 in terms of bye-laws then existing — Sale deed further providing that buyer gets additional floor area ratio consequent upon any changes in bye-laws — New Bye-laws of 2000 increasing floor area ratio but specifically providing that increase in floor ratio would not apply to plots sold in auction — Effect of such bye-law cannot be ignored — Plea of estoppel cannot be invoked in such case. Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 115. D. B. Civil Spl. Appeal No. 10 of 2005, D/- 2-3-2006 (Raj), Reversed.Modification in Master plan — Notification permitting land use from ecological to residential — Validity — Decision taken in interest of city of Jaipur, growing pressure on land for housing and considering fact that all land was private Khatedari land and was in close vicinity of Jaipur City — Therefore, in order to prevent unplanned housing, JDA allowed housing development on that land — It cannot be said that change of land use was contrary to Secs. 25(1) and 25 (2a) of JDA Act.

Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban) Rules (1974), R. 15 — Allotment of land to Indian Oil Corporation for setting up retail outlets — Arbitrariness — Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) is public-sector Undertaking fully owned by Government of India — It is discharging functions of distribution and supply of petrol and other petroleum products thereby serving public demands as per policy laid down by Government which is in furtherance of interest and welfare of public — I.O.C. not required to have permission or licence to set up retail outlets — I.O.C. had allotted ‘A’ sites for setting up retail outlets to physically handicapped candidates and one such site was being run by itself — Action of J.D.A. in deciding to allot these sites to I.O.C. not arbitrary or unreasonable.

Auction of plot — Auction held in violation of interim order directing to maintain status quo by High Court — Subsequent dismissal of writ petition — JDA would be bound by terms and conditions of auction — It can only be cancelled by a declaration made by Civil Court — JDA cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong and allowed to make party suffer which had complied with all terms and conditions of auction and had further invested huge amount — Reallowing JDA to reauction land would put premium on wrong cancellation of registry by JDA.Cancellation of sale deed — Party to registry of sale/lease deed has no right to cancel same and normal course open is to file civil suit for cancellation — In case sale is effected in violation of some statutory mandatory provision of law, consequence given in statute will be taken into consideration — Even then show cause notice is necessary as sale stands complete as soon as the auction is knocked down in favour of party.Rajasthan Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban Land) Rules (1974), Rr. 15, 15-B — Settlement of land — By negotiation through single window clearance system without any advertisement of same for auction — Not improper — Provisions of law pertaining to the JDA Act and Rules of 1974 were fully observed — Decision was taken on basis of recommendation of Board of Infrastructure Development and Investment Promotion (BIDI) which was highest policy-making body of State — No interference.

Cancellation of registered Sale Deed — Inherent power of registering authority — Fraudulent transfer of property — Sale takes place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee — Is void — True owner can nullify sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court — Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered — Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Ss. 31, 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. General Clauses Act

Sale deed — Endorsement by Sub-Registrar about registration — Presumption as to execution of deed and payment of sale consideration — Rebuttal — Executant lady was illiterate woman who could not read or write — She was issueless widow who observed parda all along while appearing before public authorities etc. — She treated defendant as her son and reposed full confidence in him — Evidence showing lump sum papers were put up before lady for obtaining her signatures and thumb impressions by defendant while she was sitting in rickshaw covered from all sides — Immediately thereafter she went back on pre-arranged taxi for her abode — All these circumstances speak against defendant and presumption in question was held to be rebutted by strong evidence.

Registration of document — Proceedings before Registrar are of quasi judicial nature — Signature on document alleged to have been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence and mistake by executant — Registering Authority has no jurisdiction to go into these questions — Aforesaid questions have to be gone into by competent Civil Court — Person who is aggrieved by finding of Registrar can challenge sale deed under S. 31 of Specific Relief Act, in competent civil Court — Civil Court shall go into issue regarding due execution independently, on basis of evidence adduced before it , without in any way being influenced by finding of Registrar.

Admission of document in evidence — Suit for permanent injunction based on allegations of infringement of trade mark — Photo copies of registration certificates of trade mark produced by plaintiff before Court — Endorsement of photo copies by Court and marking them as exhibits subject to objection as to its proof and admissibility — Is erroneous, being contrary to procedure prescribed by O. 13, R. 4. Trade and Merchandise Marks Act (43 of 1958), S. 36.Temporary injunction — Entitlement to — Plaintiff was owner of property by virtue of registered sale deed executed in his favour — Revenue records showed possession of plaintiff and attempts made by defendant to get revenue entries changed failed — Defendant claimed agreement to sell in his favour — Agreement not registered — Thus possession claimed on basis of part performance of agreement to sell, could not be read in evidence for want of registration — Plaintiff held entitled to grant of temporary injunction restraining defendant from interfering with his possession.

Estoppel — Revenue proceedings for mutation — Sister—™s statement before revenue authorities relinquishing her rights in favour of her brother — Mutation entry recording name of brother as exclusive owner, held binding on sister — She is estopped from contending contrary to her statement — Plea that there was no waiver, the relinquishment being not in writing and not registered — Not tenable — Sister cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own wrongs — Even if such statement is treated as family arrangement such statement is still binding as family arrangement may be oral and in each case registration is not necessary. AIR 1976 SC 807, Rel. on. Registration Act (16 of 1908), S. 17. Hindu Law

Rejection of plaint — Suit for partition — Plaintiffs claiming to be sons of defendant through his first wife demanded share in suit properties — Plea by defendant that plaintiffs are not his children and even if they are illegitimate children, they have no right over suit properties — Not a sufficient ground to reject plaint — Averments in plaint disclosed cause of action — No material to invoke O. 7, R. 11 — Application for rejection of plaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. AIR 1997 Kant 77, Approved. 2005 (2) Mad LW 487, Foll.

Rejection of plaint - Agreement between appellant and respondent association - Appellant agreed to build and develop property, owned by ~4~ Appellant was to call upon the respondent by notice, to register a lease deed in respect of property, except the ground and first floor - Respondent accordingly called upon but no lease executed - Building completed in 1984 - Letter written on 4.11.84 - Suit for various reliefs filed in July 1990 - Phrase, 'barred by law' - If does not include operation of Limitation Act, 1963 - Receiver found that respondent had executed lease deeds on 3.4.88, 16.7.88 and 19.4.99 - Various claims made. Held that statement in plaint does not show if it is barred by law.

When limitation is the pure question of law and from the pleadings itself it becomes apparent that a suit is barred by limitation, then, of course, is the duty of the court to decide limitation at the outset even in the absence of a plea. However, in cases where the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and the suit does not appear to be barred by limitation on the face of it, then the facts necessary to prove limitation must be pleaded, an issue raised and then proved.An application for rejection of the plaint can be filed if the allegations made in the plaint even if given face value and taken to be correct in their entirety appear to be barred by any law. The question as to whether a suit is barred by limitation or not would, therefore, depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. For the said purpose, only the averments made in the plaint are relevant. At this stage, the court would not be entitled to consider the case of the defence.Specific performance of - Respondent entered into agreement both on behalf of himself and his sister in respect of property jointly held by them in half share - Sister refused to accept the agreement - Held that the agreement can be enforced against the respondent in respect of his share of the property - Section 12 not attracted as the case not related to part of the contract but whole of the contract so far as the respondent was concerned.Agreement to sell house property - Agreement by vendor (husband) - Representation that he was absolute owner on partition among brothers and had no male child and that none else has any right over property - Vendee not having any knowledge that vendor's wife was owner to the extent of half share, which devolved upon her due to death of her son - If agreement can be enforced against vendor to the extent of half share. Held that the agreement does not fall under sub-section (2), (3) or (4) of Section 12 of Specific Relief Act, but it can be enforced in part i.e. to the extent of half share.

Prevention of breach of peace – Power of Magistrate – Merely because civil suit is pending relating to property in dispute, jurisdiction of Magistrate to proceed u/S. 145 is not taken away – Order of status quo passed by Revenue Court – Hands of Magistrate are not tied for purpose and object of proceedings u/S. 145 to maintain law & order & to prevent breach of peace – Order for attachment of property by Magistrate – Not illegal.

Breach of peace — Mere information that a dispute is likely to cause a breach of peace — Is not sufficient to exercise powers u/S. 145 of Cr. P.C. — Person who is in possession of property in dispute cannot be disposed and receiver cannot be appointed merely on basis of such an information — When petitioner himself was in possession of Ashram, it was duty of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Police to give him protection, instead of initiating proceedings under S. 145(1) of Cr. P.C. or passing orders u/S. 146(1) of Cr. P.C.Proceedings for breach of peace — Initiation of — Failure of Magistrate to assign any ground for his satisfaction that dispute had given rise to serious apprehension of breach of peace — Moreover dispute, if any between parties was a private dispute, which did not involve people in locality — Hence, such a dispute could not have been made foundation for drawing of proceeding under S. 145. AIR 1985 SC 472, Rel. on.

Dispute over title of property — Proceedings under S. 145 — Triable issue had been raised by plaintiff — Plaintiff had been residing with his family over structure raised by him over disputed property — Both balance of convenience as also irreparable injury lie in favour of plaintiff — Defendant had been kept out of possession for long time — In circumstances order of injunction in favour of plaintiff would have subserved interest of justice — Direction therefore issued to parties to maintain status quo till decision of Civil Court. Cri. Misc. No. 1709 of 2008, D/- 19-6-2008 (Ker.), Reversed.Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), Ss. 4, 5, 20 — Offence of dishonour of cheque — Evidence on affidavit — S. 145 of N.I. Act has overriding effect on provisions of Criminal P. C. providing contrary procedure for complainant—™s evidence at stage of enquiry or trial — Evidence of complainant may be given on affidavit not only during course of trial but even at pre-summoning stage i.e. before issue of process pursuant to S. 204 of Criminal P.C.

Question of balance of convenience and irreparable loss — Respondent acquiring right of development of suit property — Interim order preventing development would case irreparable loss and injury to respondent since it would not be able to utilize property till suit and appeal is disposed of — Respondent therefore permitted to carry out construction activities over disputed land, however restrained from alienating or transferring property or from creating any third party right therein during pendency of suit.

Unregistered sale deed - Admissibility - Suit for specific performance of contract - Defendantss case that plaintiff fraudulently obtained signatures on sale deed by stating it to be an agreement for sale and hence its registration was refused - Unregistered sale deed tendered as evidence - Plaintiffs case that sale deed executed by defendants not registered due to order of attachment of property - Same held to be inadmissible by trial court - Revision petition - Dismissed by High Court. Held having regard to the proviso to Section 49 the courts below erred in not admitting the unregistered sale deed. Under the proviso unregistered document affecting immovable property and required to be registered by 1908 Act/ Transfer of Property Act, 1882 may be admitted as evidence of contract in a suit for specific performance or of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. Thus an unregistered sale deed was admissible as proof of an oral agreement of sale but not as evidence of a completed sale.

Ready and willing to perform — Pleading and proof — Specific performance — Suit for — Plaintiff has to show that his conduct has been blemishless throughout — Provision imposes personal bar in event of plaintiff failing to do so — In suit, there was claim in respect of particular khasra number which did not form part of agreement — Plaint itself indicated that said khasra number was added later on — There was also an averment to effect that agreement related to a completed sale — Dismissal of suit on ground that requirements of S. 16(c) were not met — No interference. 2005 AIR SCW 4789, 2000 AIR SCW 2554, 1999 AIR SCW 2959, AIR 1968 SC 1355, Rel. on.Impleadment of party — Transferee pending suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Transfer made by transferees from defendant without leave of Court — Cannot claim impleadment in view of doctrine of lis pendens — Order impleading them on ground that there was nobody to represent and safeguard their interest — Liable to be set aside. 2007 (1) AIR Jhar R 254 : AIR 2007 (NOC) 520 (Jhar), Reversed. Impleadment of party — Transferee pending suit for specific performance of agreement to sell — Transfer made by transferees from defendant without leave of Court — Cannot claim impleadment in view of doctrine of lis pendens — Order impleading them on ground that there was nobody to represent and safeguard their interest — Liable to be set aside. 2007 (1) AIR Jhar R 254 : AIR 2007 (NOC) 520 (Jhar), Reversed. Plaintiffs alleging that first defendant executed agreement of sale in their favour — Denied by first defendant — Burden to prove that first defendant had executed agreement would be on plaintiff and not on first defendant to prove the negative — Various circumstances when taken together, creating doubt about the genuineness of agreement and dislodge effect of evidence adduced by plaintiff — Dismissal of suit — Was proper.

The discretion u/S. 34 which the Court has to exercise is a judicial discretion. That discretion has to be exercised on well-settled principles. Therefore, the Court has consider the nature of obligation in respect of which performance is sought, circumstances under which the decision came to be made, the conduct of the parties and the effect of the Court granting the decree. In such cases, the Court has to look at the contract. The Court has to ascertain whether there exists an element of mutuality in the contract. If there is absence of mutuality the Court will not exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiff. Even if, want of mutuality is regarded as discretionary and not as an absolute bar to specific performance the Court has to consider the entire conduct of the parties in relation to the subject-matter and in case of any disqualifying circumstances the Court will not grant the relief prayed for.

Suit for specific performance — Agreement to sell — Vendor having no authority to sell property at time of execution of agreement with plaintiff — Agreement has no legal sanction — Suit on basis thereof is incompetent — Subsequent sale of property to third party — Third party found to be bona fide purchaser for value without notice — Sale is protected by S. 19(b) — Refusal of relief of specific performance to plaintiff — Proper.Agreement to sell — Specific performance of — Contract made by agent of purchasers — Purchasers knowing fully well that owner of property would not sell property to them in view of earlier disputes between them entered into agreement with third person as their agent — That third person by misrepresenting that he wanted to purchase property for himself obtained consent of owners of property — Such consent obtained by fraud or misrepresentation is not free consent — Such contract is voidable at instance of owner — Fact that third person was agent of purchasers was disclosed for first time in notice for specific performance — Hence even under S. 231 owners can refuse to fulfill contract — Decree for specific performance liable to be set aside.Agreement to sell share in coparcenary property — Relief of specific performance — Grant of — Vendor cosharer entering into contract in respect of his share as also on behalf of other co-sharer — Denial on part of other co-sharers to sell their share on ground of no authority being given to vendor co-sharer — In such case decree for specific performance can be granted to extent of share of vendor co-sharer — After purchase of share of vendor, vendee would step into shoes of vendor and would become co-sharer and can always seek partition.Void agreement — Defendant, under belief that virtue of allotment order itself he had authority to sell away property, which he got allotted from Development Authority — Allotment order showed by defendant to plaintiff and the latter believed that defendant had authority to sell away said property in her favour and under that belief she agreed to purchase same — Both plaintiff and defendant proceeded with transaction under a mistake as to fact that defendant had authority under said allotment order to sell property and, therefore, they entered into said agreement of sale — Said mistake of fact was mutual between both parties besides being essential for said agreement — By virtue of provisions of S. 20 said agreement of sale became void and unenforceable in law.

Hindu Law - – Joint family property – Alienation by Karta is permissible for legal necessity — Karta executing agreement to sell – He cannot subsequently avoid execution of sale deed on ground that his wife and son also had share in joint family property – Question whether sale was for legal necessity would arise after alienation was challenged – If sale was for legal necessity, it would bind every one including son – If aggrieved, son may seek to have the alienation set aside.Limitation Act (36 of 1963) - Art. 58 — Suit for declaration — Limitation —Sale deedd executed by power of attorney holder — Limitation for challenging the power of attorney and the sale deed was to be from the date of registration of the said document, especially when, possession was also handed over to vendors in pursuance to the sale deed and mutation was also duly sanctioned — Suit filed after expiry of 3 years — Barred by limitation.Temporary injunction to restrain alienation of property — Suit for cancellation of sale deed pending — Power of Attorney holder misused his authority and executed sale deed in favour of third party — Third party was in physical possession of property — Court restrained third party from alienating land as agricultural land was being sold for purposes of colonisation Possibility of fraud also not ruled out since Power of Attorney holder had execute sale deed in favour of his wife.

Temporary injunction — Refusal — Validity — Suit for cancellation of sale deeds — Purchaser under sale deed in question was close relative and adopted son of seller, his right to sell his property was not in dispute — Purchaser had sufficient funds to purchase said agricultural land in question and adoption prima facie appeared to be genuine — Plaintiffs did not have a prima facie case in their favour for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendants from further alienating property or to direct status quo of suit property to be maintained — Validity of sale deed in question will be determined on basis of further evidence — Refusal to grant temporary injunction, proper

Power of review — Exercise of — Is permissible on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of person seeking review or could not be produced by him at time when order was made — It can be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on face of record is found — But it cannot be exercised on ground that decision was erroneous on merits.Causing death by negligence — Proof — Deceased was crushed underneath left rear tyres of truck — Accident had taken place at crowded place — How deceased came in contact with rear left tyres of truck and was crushed, not stated by witness — Prosecution had not examined any independent eye-witness — No necessary facts on record to prove rash or negligent driving by truck driver — Acquittal of accused, proper

Causing death by negligence — Proof — Accused allegedly driving tempo-truck at high speed hit motor cyclist — Path of movement of vehicles must be sought to be established in course of investigation and not be left open to ambiguity and doubt — Questions whether motor cyclist was taking turn on a green light or a red light and so too whether petitioner was driving tempo/truck crossing green light or a red light remained unanswered as site plan had not been exhibited — Non-examination of investigating officer resulted in prejudice being caused to accused — Testimony of head constable that accused was driving vehicle at “high speed” — Expression “high speed” is an unclear expression — No evidence to conclusively indicate that accused was driving vehicle in rash and negligent manner — Accused is entitled to be acquitted. 1998 SCC (Cri) 1508 Folletting aside ex parte decree — Expression sufficient cause— — Meaning — Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. Words and Phrases — Sufficient cause— — Meaning. Notice served by registered post as well as by publication in newspaper — Presumption of service — Presumption cannot be rebutted by bald statement made by wife that she was living at different address with her brother — Respondent wife made no attempt to establish there had been fraud or collusion between husband and postman — No case that “National Herald†daily newspaper published from Delhi did not have wide circulation in Delhi or in area where wife was residing with her brother — Ex parte decree, not liable to be set aside.

Neither the transferor 'J' nor the transferee 'S' took steps for incorporating change of ownership in the certificate of registration. Hence, 'J' must be deemed to continue as the owner of the vehicle for the purposes of the Act and was therefore equally liable for payment of compensation. As insurance policy was in his name he would be indemnified and the claim would shift to the insurer. Temporary injunction — Suit for partition — Plaintiffs on one side claimed that they were entitled to property as Class II heirs of deceased and defendant on other side claimed property on basis of Will — Issue as to who would be entitled, and shares to which they would be entitled to, required to be decided by trial Court — During pendency of proceedings before trial Court, property needs to be protected — Defendant restrained from transferring or from selling property in dispute, but with liberty to carry out repairs for maintenance of property.Grant of bail — Denial — Legality — Petitioner accused alleged to have committed offence under Ss. 447 and 302 of Penal Code — Although accused was minor, his application seeking bail was rejected — Plea by accused that gravity of offence committed cannot be ground for declining bail to juvenile as S. 12 was mandatory — Was tenable — As per S. 12 bail should be granted to juvenile irrespective of nature or gravity of offence — And in absence of exceptional circumstances for denying bail — Order rejecting bail to accused was liable to be set aside.Temporary injunction — Refusal — Validity — Suit filed for declaration of sale deed as ineffective and to return Land in dispute back to plaintiff — In such case, in order to protect interest of parties, trial Court should have directed that parties should maintain status quo — Such an order would have prevented emergence of third party rights and also emergence of future litigation — Refusal to grant injunction, improper.Dishonour of Cheque — Signed blank cheque issued by drawer-accused — Extent of liability disputed — As yet, drawee/complainant filled-up cheque for an amount not admitted by drawer — Accused able to prove that there is bona fide dispute with regard to extent of liability — Dishonour of cheque under such circumstance does not attract prosecution u/S. 138 of N. I. Act — Dismissal of complaint is proper.Dishonour of Cheque — Words —œfor discharge of any debt or other liability— in S. 138 — Should be interpreted to mean current existing or past ascertained liabilities — Appellant-Company supplied products on credit to dealers — Dealers required to deposit signed blank cheques as a security for credit supply — Such cheques issued in respect of future liabilities not in existence as on the date of cheque would not attract prosecution u/S. 138 of N.I. Act. AIR 2003 SC 3014, Disting.

An order passed by a person lacking inherent jurisdiction would be a nullity. The principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or even res judicata which are procedural in nature would have no application in a case where an order has been passed by the Tribunal/Court which has no authority in that behalf. Any order passed by a Court without jurisdiction would be coram non judice being a nullity, the same ordinarily should not be given effect to. However, a distinction must be made between a decree passed by a Court which has no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction in the light of Section 21 and a decree passed by a Court having no jurisdiction in regard to the subject-matter of the suit. Whereas in the former case, the appellate Court may not interfere with the decree unless prejudice is shown, ordinarily the second category of the cases would be interfered with.

Amendment of written statement — Application filed after commencement of trial — No justifiable and cogent reasons for delay in moving amendment application given — Finding recorded that facts sought to be incorporated by amendment were in knowledge of petitioner and that amendment if allowed would materially change nature of dispute — Rejection of amendment application, proper.

Withdrawal of admission — Permissibility — Suit for partition — By way of amendment defendant-petitioner wanted to bring on fact that all shops were constructed on land which was not ancestral — Proposed amendment had effect of withdrawal of clear admission made in written statement by defendant that shops were constructed on land which came into his share — Rejection of amendment, proper.

Deceased died due to motor-cycle accident — Back tier of vehicle burst and deceased fell down and received head injury — Tribunal dismissed claim application on ground that it was case of self accident of owner and driver of vehicle and no third party involved — Errone-ous — Whenever any accident occurs causing death or injury to a person in course of use of vehicle jurisdiction of Claims Tribu-nal arises — Matter remitted to Tribunal.

Photostat copy of will — Admissibility — Loss of original copy — Proof — Date on which plaintiff had handed over original will to his counsel not given in petition — Document with endorsement of officer in Nagar Palika, who had compared copy of will filed in Nagar Palika with original will taken by plaintiff, not produced — Witness did not remember as to when original will was shown to officer in Nagar Palika — Plaintiff thereby had not proved loss of original will — Secondary evidence in shape of Photostat copy of original will, would not be admissible in evidence.

Execution of Will — When said to be proved — Original Will was not at all produced before Court — No pleading or evidence of loss of original Will — Even otherwise copy of such Will was not produced — Party even did not seek to prove Will by secondary evidence — Since no amount of oral evidence about execution of any Will would be admissible unless original was produced or copy was produced and loss of original was proved — In such circumstances, Will executed by deceased cannot be said to be proved.

Certified copy of the Will is not a public doucment within meaning of S. 74 — Not admissible per se in evidence — Consequently certified copy of Will produced on record of case cannot be presumed to be primary document which could be adduced in evidence and same could be proved only by leading secondary evidence after taking permission of Court and proving loss, destruction etc. of document.

Application for rejection of plaint — Ground that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute — Rejection — Validity — Dispute relating to securities transaction — Under rules and by-laws framed by Bombay Stock Exchange for any dispute between Broker, Sub-Broker and client, specific provision of arbitration was provided and dispute was required to be sent for arbitration before Arbitration Committee constituted by Bombay Stock Exchange — By-laws of Bombay Stock Exchange not considered while deciding application under O. 7, R. 11 — Improper — Matter remitted for decision afresh.

Declaratory decree — Suit for cancellation of sale deed, and general power of attorney as being null and void and for injunction against defendant — Suit cannot be considered as one for mere declaratory relief — Trial Court without referring to Ss. 38 and 26 of Act erroneously accepted Court fee paid by plaintiff by as per S. 24 of Act — Matter remanded to trial Court to determine correct Court fee payable as regards market value of suit property as on date of suit.

Ancestral property — Succession prior to 1994 amendment — Father having seven sons three daughters — His ancestral property prior to his death would be divided in eight equal parts i.e. 1/8th for himself and 1/8th each for the seven sons — Each of the sons will get 1/8th share in the total property — On the demise of father his 1/8th share will go to his widow — It would be only on the demise of his widow the seven sons and three daughters will get equal share in the share held by her — On her death the seven sons and three daughters thus will each get 1/10 share from the 1/8th share of the total property and, therefore, each one of them will have 1/8th share in the total property — Order of Court making 11 parts of total property inherited by father by treating 11 coparcener in all i.e. father, seven son and three daughters not proper as married daughters could not get equal shares with sons prior to (1994) amendment introducing chapter II-A consisting of Ss. 29A to 29C

Joint family property — Suit to set aside sale — Ground that it was not for legal necessity — Sale in question by plaintiff’s father — Plaintiff’s father inheriting property along with his sister — Land partitioned and recorded in name of each — Loses character of joint family property — S. 6 has not application — Plaintiff’s father and his sisters were tenants in common — Each had right to transfer his share of land — Suit liable to be dismissed

Setting aside of ex parte decree — It is knowledge of ‘date of hearing’ and not knowledge of pendency of suit which is relevant for second proviso to O. 9, R. 13 — No summon of application under S. 6 of Act of 1957 for specific date was served upon petitioner — Presumption of service of summon upon him cannot be drawn only on basis of pendency of application under S. 6 of Act — Ex parte decree passed liable to be set aside. AIR 2002 SC 2370, Rel. on.

Effect of substituting or adding new plaintiff or defendant - Suit filed against dead person - Application for substituting legal heirs - Error committed due to a mistake made in good faith - Held that its effect is not to begin from the date on which the application for the purpose was made, or from the date of permission but from the date of the suit, deeming it to have been correctly instituted on an earlier date than the date of making the application

, after filing of rejoinder by the plaintiff respondent. The trial Court, after perusing the pleadings of the averments of the plaint as well as reply and rejoinder, reached to the conclusion that the matter requires proper adjudication because, prima facie, case was made out from the plain reading of the plaint and therefore rejection of application filed by defendant under O. 7,

½ years — No limitation prescribed for filing an application u/O. 9, R. 7 — It is open to Court to condone absence of defendant at any stage of proceedings — However only at stage when matter posted for judgment after completing trial proceedings, application filed u/O. 9, R. 7 cannot be maintained.

third party—™ liability — Deceased succumbed to injuries sustained while attempting to board goods carrier from behind — Evidence shows that driver of vehicle enabled deceased board vehicle and for whatever reasons suddenly moved vehicle and in such process deceased fell down and succumbed to injuries sustained by him — Even though driver carried out an unauthorized act of carrying passenger in goods vehicle — Owner cannot be absolved of its vicarious liability for negligent careless act of driver — Deceased covered very much within phrase —

Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) - O. 7, R. 11(d) — Re-jection of plaint — Ground of limitation — If a suit on face of it is barred by limitation it can be rejected under O. 7, R. 11 of Code — However question whether suit is within limitation is to be considered only on basis of averments in plaint. If a suit is on the face of it barred by limitation it can be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code. In such a case it is not necessary to push the parties to trial merely because limitation is mixed question of fact and law. But it does not follow that the objections of the defendant to the date shown in the plaint as the date of accrual of cause of action can be looked into at that stage. The question whether the suit is within limitation or not would have to be considered by the Court for the purpose of application for rejection of plaint only on the basis of averments in the plaint.Limitation Act (36 of 1963) - Art. 54 — Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 20 — Suit for specific performance of contract — Starting point of limitation — If date is not fixed in contract limitation starts from date of refusal on part of defendant to perform contract — Refusal requires demand by plaintiff and if demand is refused, that gives cause of action — Refusal to re-deliver possession by defendant will not give rise to cause of action — Cause of action was for demand of execution of sale deed — Plaint does not show as to when demand was made by plaintiff for registering sale deed in his favour — Burden is on plaintiff to show that there was embargo to be lifted by Govt. and it had prevented plaintiff from seeking registration of the sale — Waiting for 19 years, does not give right to plaintiff to sue for specific performance, but for penalty of Rs. 30,000/-

Suit for eviction — Personal bona fide necessity — Landlord having factory for manufacturing furniture and handicrafts required suit shop for opening their showroom of furniture and handicrafts — Plea that no books of accounts were produced before trial Court to show loss caused on account of non-setting up showroom, not tenable — Since sufferance of actual loss of non-setting up of showroom of furniture and handicrafts was not necessary as such loss could not be measured in terms of money nor it was recorded in books of accounts — Suit decreed on ground of personal bona fide need, not improper.Commercial premises — Suit for eviction — Bona fide need — Landlord had retired from Govt. service and he wanted to do his own business in suit premises — Death of landlord during pendency of appeal — Requirement of premises by his legal heirs namely widow will not extinguish on his death — Fact that widow was getting pension and her sons were also in employment, cannot be ground to deny her possession — Even widow has her own independent right of survival and earn her livelihood after death of her husband — Eviction ordered.Suit for eviction — Default in payment of rent — Rent provisionally determined in terms of S. 13(3) of 1950 Act — But no order passed by trial court in suit and defence of tenant was not struck off — Subsequent withdrawal of suit after enforcement of Act of 2001 — No provision akin to provisions of S. 13(3) to 13(5) of the Act of 1950, providing for determination of rent provisionally or striking out defence on account of non payment of amount determined provisionally or monthly rent subsequent thereto, incorporated in Act of 2001 — Question of striking out the defence of the tenant in proceedings for eviction u/S. 9 of the Act of 2001 would not arise — Even if, any such right had accrued to petitioner during pendency of eviction proceedings before trial Court under Act of 1950, the same cannot be enforced in fresh eviction proceedings lodged under provisions of S. 9 of Act of 2001.Amendment in written statement — Permissibility — Crutial date is date of petition — Suit for eviction of tenant from shop — Amendment sought in appeal to incorporate plea that ground of bona fide necessity ceased to exist due to appointment of son of landlord in Bank — Fact of appointment was not in existence at stage of trial — If such application will be allowed at appellate stage then certainly at every stage after adjudication, parties will take plea of amendment and no trial Court will be able to adjudicate matter finally and there will be no end of dispute — Said ground cannot be allowed to take away ground of personal bona fide necessity of landlord — Amendment cannot be allowed. AIR 2005 SC 1274, Rel. on. AIR 2007 SC 2511, AIR 2002 SC 3369, Disting

Alleged encroachment of suit land of appellant Board — Respondents’ land adjacent to suit land — Application for demarcation by appellant before trial Court, was rejected — Application for appointment of Local Commissioner for demarcation of suit land filed by appellant before Appellate Court was also rejected — High Court did not consider whether Local Commissioner should be appointed for purpose of demarcation — Summarily dismissed second appeal on basis of concurrent findings of fact that Board failed to prove encroachment by respondents — Order of High Court liable to be set aside. R. S. A. No. 3374 of 2003, D/- 16-1-2007 (Punj. and Har.) - Reversed.

Appointment of Commissioner — Plaintiff seeking injunction against defendants from disturbing plaintiffs running vegetable market — Defendants denied existence of such market — Application filed by plaintiffs for appointment of an advocate-Commissioner — Commissioner can be appointed for purpose of ascertaining state of things that may be asserted and denied by rival parties — Rejection of application by trial Court on ground that plaintiffs could not seek to fish out evidence or establish a state of things — Improper.

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.

Suit for Specific performance of contract - Limitation -- Appellant entering into an agreement for sale of his land to respondent in October 1982 - Respondent upon paying certain amount as earnest money put in physical possession of the land -Sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered upon disposal of an appeal pending in High Court - As per the sale agreement respondent was to repay an amount of Rs. 42,000 to a bank being the loan taken by the appellant from the bank - Bank having filed a suit for recovery appellant issuing notice to respondent on 24-4-1984 directing him to pay the loan amount to the bank and get the sale deed executed within 15 days failing which the agreement shall stand cancelled - Respondent depositing an amount of only Rs. 10,000 in the bank on 25-5-1985 - On 26-9-1989 respondent filing a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale - Trial court decreeing the suit - Lower appellate court however holding the suit to be barred by limitation - On further appeal High Court holding that since time was not the essence of the contract the suit was not barred and accordingly remitting the matter to the lower appellate court - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that since the suit was not filed within three years from the date of expiry of the period of fifteen days specified in the notice dated 24-4-1984 it was barred by limitation.Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale - Suit filed almost 29 years after the sale agreement - Defendant disputing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court and also taking the stand that the suit was barred by limitation - Trial court holding that it had jurisdiction to try the suit and dismissing the suit as being barred by limitation - Lower appellate court as well as High Court affirming the decision and dismissing the appeal - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that the trial court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. Applicability of Section 46 of the Contract Act and several other pleas available to the defendants which were required to be considered, cannot enable the dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation. Matter accordingly remitted to trial court for fresh consideration of all the issues.Agreement for sale of property - Form of contract and execution of deeds - Performance of contract - Limitation for raising the plea of specific performance - Private limited company (company) owning certain property entering into an agreement with first respondent for sale - Agreement for sale dated 18.4.1971 -Company receiving advance amount for sale - In May 1971 company filing a suit against some persons claiming ownership over the property and obtaining a consent decree on 3.5.1978 - Thereafter first respondent writing letters on 12-11-1979, 11.1.1980, 5.1.1981 and 8.10.1984 asking the company to execute and register the sale deed - Company also assuring the first respondent that it would do the needful - However on 21.8.1985 company refusing to execute and register the deed on the plea that the same became barred by limitation - First respondent filing suit for specific performance in 1985 - During pendency of the suit company selling the property to appellant - Appellant contesting the suit and disputing its maintainability - Trial court decreeing the suit - Appeals there against dismissed by the lower appellate court as well as High Court. Dismissing further appeal held that since the period of limitation got extended by conduct of the parties the suit was not barred. Execution of the agreement by the company in favour of the first respondent had not been denied at any stage. Even in the absence of any resolution on the part of the company or official seal of the company in the agreement the contract could not be held to be invalid or illegal. Decretal of the suit for specific performance consequently upheld.

Rejection of plaint — On ground that second suit was filed without obtaining leave under O. 2, R. 2 — Second suit was filed for specific performance of agreement — First suit was filed for injunction — Cause of action was substantively same in both suits as both suits were based on agreement executed between plaintiff and defendants — Plaintiff omitted prayer for specific performance in first suit — Second suit was required to be filed after obtaining leave under O. 2, R. 2 — Suit was filed without obtaining leave under O. 2, R. 2 — Rejection of plaint proper.

Rejection of plaint — Suit for specific performance of contract — Case of defendants that Memorandum of Understanding entered into between parties is void and illegal — Civil court is entitled to take cognizance of every dispute of civil nature unless law prohibits it either expressly or impliedly from entertaining the dispute — Party seeking rejection of plaint under O. 7, R. 11 must show provision of law prohibiting civil court from entertaining the dispute or that an alternate forum or remedy is provided — Failure to show any such provision of law — Rejection of plaint not proper.

Registration of sale agreement — Whether mandatory for seeking injunction — Applicant sought injunction on ground that he had purchased suit property and paid part consideration — Unregistered sale deed showing delivery of possession to applicant on payment of 85% sale consideration — Reliability — Had the applicant sought benefit of part performance under S. 53-A of T. P. Act registration of sale deed would have been mandatory — Since no such benefit is claimed, unregistered sale deed can be relied upon by Court in an injunction application.

Registration of sale deed — Validity — Suit for specific performance on basis of unregistered sale deed was pending before Civil Court — Jurisdiction of Civil Court is plenary in nature and, therefore, all questions in respect of execution of documents and receipt of sale consideration or execution of agreement are issues, which are required to be examined in civil suit — Invocation of jurisdiction of Registrar under S. 73 of Act would be abuse of process of law — Therefore, order passed by Registrar directing registration of sale deed during pendency of matter before Civil Court would be improper.

Agreement to sell — Suit for specific performance — Readiness and willingness — Plaintiff vendee not pleading that he was ready and willing to pay balance amount or that he made any effort to pay the same — Not entitled to relief of specific performance. (B) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 16 (c) — Agreement to sell — Suit for specific performance — Subsequent purchaser of property who were defendant in suit — Entitled to raise plea that plaintiff (prior purchaser) was never ready and willing to perform his part of contract. AIR 2000 SC 860, Rel. on.

Temporary injunction — Refusal — Validity — Suit for cancellation of sale deeds — Purchaser under sale deed in question was close relative and adopted son of seller, his right to sell his property was not in dispute — Purchaser had sufficient funds to purchase said agricultural land in question and adoption prima facie appeared to be genuine — Plaintiffs did not have a prima facie case in their favour for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendants from further alienating property or to direct status quo of suit property to be maintained — Validity of sale deed in question will be determined on basis of further evidence — Refusal to grant temporary injunction, proper.

Specific performance — Suit for — Agreement to sell — Defence that time was essence of contract and plaintiff failed to pay within time — Agreement though specified time for execution of sale deed — Stipulation for forfeiture of earnest money in event of failure to execute sale deed also made — Indicates that time was never intended by parties to be of essence — Defendant could not substantiate plea that time was essence of contract and that it was plaintiffs who avoided to perform their part — Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to decree. 1997 AIR SCW 956, Disting. (2004) 8 SCC 689, 1993 AIR SCW 1371, Relied on.

Rajasthan Land Revenue Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Construction of Cinemas, Hotels and Establishment of Petrol Pumps Rules (1978), R. 7 — Application for allotment of land — Scrutiny and enquiry of applications — R. 7(1) gives discretion to Collector to send application for advice of Chief town Planner — Word ‘enquiry’ denotes that in scrutinising application, Collector would collect all information about land in question and invite objections from inhabitants residing in village where land was situated —Order of Collector on its face showing that there has not been judicial exercise of discretion and objections from inhabitants were not invited — Collector has not assigned any reason as to why application was not sent to Chief Town Planner for his advice — Order of allotment set aside.Allotment of agricultural land to landless person - Subsequent cancellation - Ground that petitioner was not a landless person at time of allotment as he held a notional share in ancestral agricultural land of his father - Finding recorded by Additional Collector that petitioner was not a landless person was based on misconstruction and misapplication of relevant law on subject - He based his findings on circular of revenue department but completely ignored schedule appended to Rules of 1955 which was then available on statute book - Order cancelling allotment - Constituted error apparent on face of record -Liable to be set asideRajasthan Tenancy Act (3 of 1955), S. 15 — Khatedari rights — Claim for — Petitioner has not proved that he was in possession over disputed land prior to Samvat 2012, period corresponding to commencement of Rajasthan Tenancy Act — Plaintiff could not be recorded as Khatedar in absence of either any allotment letter in his favour or an order of regularisation based on prolonged possession by competent officer — Plaintiff cannot be allowed to take advantage of wrong entries made in his favour — Mutation in name of plaintiff liable to be cancelled. 1987 RRD 2002, Disting.

Allotment of land — To be made in consultation with Advisory committee — Specific quorum of Advisory Committee provided in Rules of 1970 — Then contrary to said rule no quorum can be permitted by administrative order — S. 13(3A) specifically provided that quorum for constituting meeting of Advisory Committee shall be of three members of whom one should be from Member of Legislative Assembly, Pradhan or the Sarpanch — However none of them were members of Advisory Committee and therefore allotment so made would be illegal.

aipur Development Authority (Jaipur Region), Building Bye-laws (2000) Bye-law 19.8 — Floor area ratio — Fixation, of — Auction of property — Sale deed stipulating that floor area ratio was 1.0 in terms of bye-laws then existing — Sale deed further providing that buyer gets additional floor area ratio consequent upon any changes in bye-laws — New Bye-laws of 2000 increasing floor area ratio but specifically providing that increase in floor ratio would not apply to plots sold in auction — Effect of such bye-law cannot be ignored — Plea of estoppel cannot be invoked in such case. Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 115. D. B. Civil Spl. Appeal No. 10 of 2005, D/- 2-3-2006 (Raj), Reversed.

Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban) Rules (1974), R. 15 — Allotment of land to Indian Oil Corporation for setting up retail outlets — Arbitrariness — Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) is public-sector Undertaking fully owned by Government of India — It is discharging functions of distribution and supply of petrol and other petroleum products thereby serving public demands as per policy laid down by Government which is in furtherance of interest and welfare of public — I.O.C. not required to have permission or licence to set up retail outlets — I.O.C. had allotted ‘A’ sites for setting up retail outlets to physically handicapped candidates and one such site was being run by itself — Action of J.D.A. in deciding to allot these sites to I.O.C. not arbitrary or unreasonable.

Auction of plot — Auction held in violation of interim order directing to maintain status quo by High Court — Subsequent dismissal of writ petition — JDA would be bound by terms and conditions of auction — It can only be cancelled by a declaration made by Civil Court — JDA cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong and allowed to make party suffer which had complied with all terms and conditions of auction and had further invested huge amount — Reallowing JDA to reauction land would put premium on wrong cancellation of registry by JDA.

Cancellation of registered Sale Deed — Inherent power of registering authority — Fraudulent transfer of property — Sale takes place by reason of fraud played by transferor and transferee — Is void — True owner can nullify sale by executing and registering a cancellation deed without seeking declaration or cancellation of fraudulent transfer deed from Court — Registering authority is empowered to cancel sale deed earlier registered — Registration of document cannot be understood to be an absolute sale divesting vender of its title else it would render Ss. 31, 34 of Specific Relief Act, otiose. General Clauses Act

Sale deed — Endorsement by Sub-Registrar about registration — Presumption as to execution of deed and payment of sale consideration — Rebuttal — Executant lady was illiterate woman who could not read or write — She was issueless widow who observed parda all along while appearing before public authorities etc. — She treated defendant as her son and reposed full confidence in him — Evidence showing lump sum papers were put up before lady for obtaining her signatures and thumb impressions by defendant while she was sitting in rickshaw covered from all sides — Immediately thereafter she went back on pre-arranged taxi for her abode — All these circumstances speak against defendant and presumption in question was held to be rebutted by strong evidence.

Registration of document — Proceedings before Registrar are of quasi judicial nature — Signature on document alleged to have been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence and mistake by executant — Registering Authority has no jurisdiction to go into these questions — Aforesaid questions have to be gone into by competent Civil Court — Person who is aggrieved by finding of Registrar can challenge sale deed under S. 31 of Specific Relief Act, in competent civil Court — Civil Court shall go into issue regarding due execution independently, on basis of evidence adduced before it , without in any way being influenced by finding of Registrar.

Temporary injunction — Entitlement to — Plaintiff was owner of property by virtue of registered sale deed executed in his favour — Revenue records showed possession of plaintiff and attempts made by defendant to get revenue entries changed failed — Defendant claimed agreement to sell in his favour — Agreement not registered — Thus possession claimed on basis of part performance of agreement to sell, could not be read in evidence for want of registration — Plaintiff held entitled to grant of temporary injunction restraining defendant from interfering with his possession.

Estoppel — Revenue proceedings for mutation — Sister—™s statement before revenue authorities relinquishing her rights in favour of her brother — Mutation entry recording name of brother as exclusive owner, held binding on sister — She is estopped from contending contrary to her statement — Plea that there was no waiver, the relinquishment being not in writing and not registered — Not tenable — Sister cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own wrongs — Even if such statement is treated as family arrangement such statement is still binding as family arrangement may be oral and in each case registration is not necessary. AIR 1976 SC 807, Rel. on. Registration Act (16 of 1908), S. 17. Hindu Law

Rejection of plaint — Suit for partition — Plaintiffs claiming to be sons of defendant through his first wife demanded share in suit properties — Plea by defendant that plaintiffs are not his children and even if they are illegitimate children, they have no right over suit properties — Not a sufficient ground to reject plaint — Averments in plaint disclosed cause of action — No material to invoke O. 7, R. 11 — Application for rejection of plaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. AIR 1997 Kant 77, Approved. 2005 (2) Mad LW 487, Foll.

Rejection of plaint - Agreement between appellant and respondent association - Appellant agreed to build and develop property, owned by ~4~ Appellant was to call upon the respondent by notice, to register a lease deed in respect of property, except the ground and first floor - Respondent accordingly called upon but no lease executed - Building completed in 1984 - Letter written on 4.11.84 - Suit for various reliefs filed in July 1990 - Phrase, 'barred by law' - If does not include operation of Limitation Act, 1963 - Receiver found that respondent had executed lease deeds on 3.4.88, 16.7.88 and 19.4.99 - Various claims made. Held that statement in plaint does not show if it is barred by law.

Agreement to sell house property - Agreement by vendor (husband) - Representation that he was absolute owner on partition among brothers and had no male child and that none else has any right over property - Vendee not having any knowledge that vendor's wife was owner to the extent of half share, which devolved upon her due to death of her son - If agreement can be enforced against vendor to the extent of half share. Held that the agreement does not fall under sub-section (2), (3) or (4) of Section 12 of Specific Relief Act, but it can be enforced in part i.e. to the extent of half share.

Breach of peace — Mere information that a dispute is likely to cause a breach of peace — Is not sufficient to exercise powers u/S. 145 of Cr. P.C. — Person who is in possession of property in dispute cannot be disposed and receiver cannot be appointed merely on basis of such an information — When petitioner himself was in possession of Ashram, it was duty of Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Police to give him protection, instead of initiating proceedings under S. 145(1) of Cr. P.C. or passing orders u/S. 146(1) of Cr. P.C.

Dispute over title of property — Proceedings under S. 145 — Triable issue had been raised by plaintiff — Plaintiff had been residing with his family over structure raised by him over disputed property — Both balance of convenience as also irreparable injury lie in favour of plaintiff — Defendant had been kept out of possession for long time — In circumstances order of injunction in favour of plaintiff would have subserved interest of justice — Direction therefore issued to parties to maintain status quo till decision of Civil Court. Cri. Misc. No. 1709 of 2008, D/- 19-6-2008 (Ker.), Reversed.

Unregistered sale deed - Admissibility - Suit for specific performance of contract - Defendantss case that plaintiff fraudulently obtained signatures on sale deed by stating it to be an agreement for sale and hence its registration was refused - Unregistered sale deed tendered as evidence - Plaintiffs case that sale deed executed by defendants not registered due to order of attachment of property - Same held to be inadmissible by trial court - Revision petition - Dismissed by High Court. Held having regard to the proviso to Section 49 the courts below erred in not admitting the unregistered sale deed. Under the proviso unregistered document affecting immovable property and required to be registered by 1908 Act/ Transfer of Property Act, 1882 may be admitted as evidence of contract in a suit for specific performance or of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. Thus an unregistered sale deed was admissible as proof of an oral agreement of sale but not as evidence of a completed sale.

Ready and willing to perform — Pleading and proof — Specific performance — Suit for — Plaintiff has to show that his conduct has been blemishless throughout — Provision imposes personal bar in event of plaintiff failing to do so — In suit, there was claim in respect of particular khasra number which did not form part of agreement — Plaint itself indicated that said khasra number was added later on — There was also an averment to effect that agreement related to a completed sale — Dismissal of suit on ground that requirements of S. 16(c) were not met — No interference. 2005 AIR SCW 4789, 2000 AIR SCW 2554, 1999 AIR SCW 2959, AIR 1968 SC 1355, Rel. on.

The discretion u/S. 34 which the Court has to exercise is a judicial discretion. That discretion has to be exercised on well-settled principles. Therefore, the Court has consider the nature of obligation in respect of which performance is sought, circumstances under which the decision came to be made, the conduct of the parties and the effect of the Court granting the decree. In such cases, the Court has to look at the contract. The Court has to ascertain whether there exists an element of mutuality in the contract. If there is absence of mutuality the Court will not exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiff. Even if, want of mutuality is regarded as discretionary and not as an absolute bar to specific performance the Court has to consider the entire conduct of the parties in relation to the subject-matter and in case of any disqualifying circumstances the Court will not grant the relief prayed for.

Agreement to sell — Specific performance of — Contract made by agent of purchasers — Purchasers knowing fully well that owner of property would not sell property to them in view of earlier disputes between them entered into agreement with third person as their agent — That third person by misrepresenting that he wanted to purchase property for himself obtained consent of owners of property — Such consent obtained by fraud or misrepresentation is not free consent — Such contract is voidable at instance of owner — Fact that third person was agent of purchasers was disclosed for first time in notice for specific performance — Hence even under S. 231 owners can refuse to fulfill contract — Decree for specific performance liable to be set aside.Agreement to sell share in coparcenary property — Relief of specific performance — Grant of — Vendor cosharer entering into contract in respect of his share as also on behalf of other co-sharer — Denial on part of other co-sharers to sell their share on ground of no authority being given to vendor co-sharer — In such case decree for specific performance can be granted to extent of share of vendor co-sharer — After purchase of share of vendor, vendee would step into shoes of vendor and would become co-sharer and can always seek partition.Void agreement — Defendant, under belief that virtue of allotment order itself he had authority to sell away property, which he got allotted from Development Authority — Allotment order showed by defendant to plaintiff and the latter believed that defendant had authority to sell away said property in her favour and under that belief she agreed to purchase same — Both plaintiff and defendant proceeded with transaction under a mistake as to fact that defendant had authority under said allotment order to sell property and, therefore, they entered into said agreement of sale — Said mistake of fact was mutual between both parties besides being essential for said agreement — By virtue of provisions of S. 20 said agreement of sale became void and unenforceable in law.

Temporary injunction to restrain alienation of property — Suit for cancellation of sale deed pending — Power of Attorney holder misused his authority and executed sale deed in favour of third party — Third party was in physical possession of property — Court restrained third party from alienating land as agricultural land was being sold for purposes of colonisation Possibility of fraud also not ruled out since Power of Attorney holder had execute sale deed in favour of his wife.

Temporary injunction — Refusal — Validity — Suit for cancellation of sale deeds — Purchaser under sale deed in question was close relative and adopted son of seller, his right to sell his property was not in dispute — Purchaser had sufficient funds to purchase said agricultural land in question and adoption prima facie appeared to be genuine — Plaintiffs did not have a prima facie case in their favour for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendants from further alienating property or to direct status quo of suit property to be maintained — Validity of sale deed in question will be determined on basis of further evidence — Refusal to grant temporary injunction, proper

Causing death by negligence — Proof — Accused allegedly driving tempo-truck at high speed hit motor cyclist — Path of movement of vehicles must be sought to be established in course of investigation and not be left open to ambiguity and doubt — Questions whether motor cyclist was taking turn on a green light or a red light and so too whether petitioner was driving tempo/truck crossing green light or a red light remained unanswered as site plan had not been exhibited — Non-examination of investigating officer resulted in prejudice being caused to accused — Testimony of head constable that accused was driving vehicle at “high speed” — Expression “high speed” is an unclear expression — No evidence to conclusively indicate that accused was driving vehicle in rash and negligent manner — Accused is entitled to be acquitted. 1998 SCC (Cri) 1508 Folletting aside ex parte decree — Expression sufficient cause— — Meaning — Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. Words and Phrases — Sufficient cause— — Meaning. Notice served by registered post as well as by publication in newspaper — Presumption of service — Presumption cannot be rebutted by bald statement made by wife that she was living at different address with her brother — Respondent wife made no attempt to establish there had been fraud or collusion between husband and postman — No case that “National Herald†daily newspaper published from Delhi did not have wide circulation in Delhi or in area where wife was residing with her brother — Ex parte decree, not liable to be set aside.

Temporary injunction — Suit for partition — Plaintiffs on one side claimed that they were entitled to property as Class II heirs of deceased and defendant on other side claimed property on basis of Will — Issue as to who would be entitled, and shares to which they would be entitled to, required to be decided by trial Court — During pendency of proceedings before trial Court, property needs to be protected — Defendant restrained from transferring or from selling property in dispute, but with liberty to carry out repairs for maintenance of property.Grant of bail — Denial — Legality — Petitioner accused alleged to have committed offence under Ss. 447 and 302 of Penal Code — Although accused was minor, his application seeking bail was rejected — Plea by accused that gravity of offence committed cannot be ground for declining bail to juvenile as S. 12 was mandatory — Was tenable — As per S. 12 bail should be granted to juvenile irrespective of nature or gravity of offence — And in absence of exceptional circumstances for denying bail — Order rejecting bail to accused was liable to be set aside.

An order passed by a person lacking inherent jurisdiction would be a nullity. The principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or even res judicata which are procedural in nature would have no application in a case where an order has been passed by the Tribunal/Court which has no authority in that behalf. Any order passed by a Court without jurisdiction would be coram non judice being a nullity, the same ordinarily should not be given effect to. However, a distinction must be made between a decree passed by a Court which has no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction in the light of Section 21 and a decree passed by a Court having no jurisdiction in regard to the subject-matter of the suit. Whereas in the former case, the appellate Court may not interfere with the decree unless prejudice is shown, ordinarily the second category of the cases would be interfered with.

Photostat copy of will — Admissibility — Loss of original copy — Proof — Date on which plaintiff had handed over original will to his counsel not given in petition — Document with endorsement of officer in Nagar Palika, who had compared copy of will filed in Nagar Palika with original will taken by plaintiff, not produced — Witness did not remember as to when original will was shown to officer in Nagar Palika — Plaintiff thereby had not proved loss of original will — Secondary evidence in shape of Photostat copy of original will, would not be admissible in evidence.

Execution of Will — When said to be proved — Original Will was not at all produced before Court — No pleading or evidence of loss of original Will — Even otherwise copy of such Will was not produced — Party even did not seek to prove Will by secondary evidence — Since no amount of oral evidence about execution of any Will would be admissible unless original was produced or copy was produced and loss of original was proved — In such circumstances, Will executed by deceased cannot be said to be proved.

Application for rejection of plaint — Ground that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute — Rejection — Validity — Dispute relating to securities transaction — Under rules and by-laws framed by Bombay Stock Exchange for any dispute between Broker, Sub-Broker and client, specific provision of arbitration was provided and dispute was required to be sent for arbitration before Arbitration Committee constituted by Bombay Stock Exchange — By-laws of Bombay Stock Exchange not considered while deciding application under O. 7, R. 11 — Improper — Matter remitted for decision afresh.

Ancestral property — Succession prior to 1994 amendment — Father having seven sons three daughters — His ancestral property prior to his death would be divided in eight equal parts i.e. 1/8th for himself and 1/8th each for the seven sons — Each of the sons will get 1/8th share in the total property — On the demise of father his 1/8th share will go to his widow — It would be only on the demise of his widow the seven sons and three daughters will get equal share in the share held by her — On her death the seven sons and three daughters thus will each get 1/10 share from the 1/8th share of the total property and, therefore, each one of them will have 1/8th share in the total property — Order of Court making 11 parts of total property inherited by father by treating 11 coparcener in all i.e. father, seven son and three daughters not proper as married daughters could not get equal shares with sons prior to (1994) amendment introducing chapter II-A consisting of Ss. 29A to 29C

, after filing of rejoinder by the plaintiff respondent. The trial Court, after perusing the pleadings of the averments of the plaint as well as reply and rejoinder, reached to the conclusion that the matter requires proper adjudication because, prima facie, case was made out from the plain reading of the plaint and therefore rejection of application filed by defendant under O. 7,

third party—™ liability — Deceased succumbed to injuries sustained while attempting to board goods carrier from behind — Evidence shows that driver of vehicle enabled deceased board vehicle and for whatever reasons suddenly moved vehicle and in such process deceased fell down and succumbed to injuries sustained by him — Even though driver carried out an unauthorized act of carrying passenger in goods vehicle — Owner cannot be absolved of its vicarious liability for negligent careless act of driver — Deceased covered very much within phrase —

Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) - O. 7, R. 11(d) — Re-jection of plaint — Ground of limitation — If a suit on face of it is barred by limitation it can be rejected under O. 7, R. 11 of Code — However question whether suit is within limitation is to be considered only on basis of averments in plaint. If a suit is on the face of it barred by limitation it can be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code. In such a case it is not necessary to push the parties to trial merely because limitation is mixed question of fact and law. But it does not follow that the objections of the defendant to the date shown in the plaint as the date of accrual of cause of action can be looked into at that stage. The question whether the suit is within limitation or not would have to be considered by the Court for the purpose of application for rejection of plaint only on the basis of averments in the plaint.Limitation Act (36 of 1963) - Art. 54 — Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 20 — Suit for specific performance of contract — Starting point of limitation — If date is not fixed in contract limitation starts from date of refusal on part of defendant to perform contract — Refusal requires demand by plaintiff and if demand is refused, that gives cause of action — Refusal to re-deliver possession by defendant will not give rise to cause of action — Cause of action was for demand of execution of sale deed — Plaint does not show as to when demand was made by plaintiff for registering sale deed in his favour — Burden is on plaintiff to show that there was embargo to be lifted by Govt. and it had prevented plaintiff from seeking registration of the sale — Waiting for 19 years, does not give right to plaintiff to sue for specific performance, but for penalty of Rs. 30,000/-

Suit for eviction — Default in payment of rent — Rent provisionally determined in terms of S. 13(3) of 1950 Act — But no order passed by trial court in suit and defence of tenant was not struck off — Subsequent withdrawal of suit after enforcement of Act of 2001 — No provision akin to provisions of S. 13(3) to 13(5) of the Act of 1950, providing for determination of rent provisionally or striking out defence on account of non payment of amount determined provisionally or monthly rent subsequent thereto, incorporated in Act of 2001 — Question of striking out the defence of the tenant in proceedings for eviction u/S. 9 of the Act of 2001 would not arise — Even if, any such right had accrued to petitioner during pendency of eviction proceedings before trial Court under Act of 1950, the same cannot be enforced in fresh eviction proceedings lodged under provisions of S. 9 of Act of 2001.Amendment in written statement — Permissibility — Crutial date is date of petition — Suit for eviction of tenant from shop — Amendment sought in appeal to incorporate plea that ground of bona fide necessity ceased to exist due to appointment of son of landlord in Bank — Fact of appointment was not in existence at stage of trial — If such application will be allowed at appellate stage then certainly at every stage after adjudication, parties will take plea of amendment and no trial Court will be able to adjudicate matter finally and there will be no end of dispute — Said ground cannot be allowed to take away ground of personal bona fide necessity of landlord — Amendment cannot be allowed. AIR 2005 SC 1274, Rel. on. AIR 2007 SC 2511, AIR 2002 SC 3369, Disting

Alleged encroachment of suit land of appellant Board — Respondents’ land adjacent to suit land — Application for demarcation by appellant before trial Court, was rejected — Application for appointment of Local Commissioner for demarcation of suit land filed by appellant before Appellate Court was also rejected — High Court did not consider whether Local Commissioner should be appointed for purpose of demarcation — Summarily dismissed second appeal on basis of concurrent findings of fact that Board failed to prove encroachment by respondents — Order of High Court liable to be set aside. R. S. A. No. 3374 of 2003, D/- 16-1-2007 (Punj. and Har.) - Reversed.

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.

Suit for Specific performance of contract - Limitation -- Appellant entering into an agreement for sale of his land to respondent in October 1982 - Respondent upon paying certain amount as earnest money put in physical possession of the land -Sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered upon disposal of an appeal pending in High Court - As per the sale agreement respondent was to repay an amount of Rs. 42,000 to a bank being the loan taken by the appellant from the bank - Bank having filed a suit for recovery appellant issuing notice to respondent on 24-4-1984 directing him to pay the loan amount to the bank and get the sale deed executed within 15 days failing which the agreement shall stand cancelled - Respondent depositing an amount of only Rs. 10,000 in the bank on 25-5-1985 - On 26-9-1989 respondent filing a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale - Trial court decreeing the suit - Lower appellate court however holding the suit to be barred by limitation - On further appeal High Court holding that since time was not the essence of the contract the suit was not barred and accordingly remitting the matter to the lower appellate court - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that since the suit was not filed within three years from the date of expiry of the period of fifteen days specified in the notice dated 24-4-1984 it was barred by limitation.Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale - Suit filed almost 29 years after the sale agreement - Defendant disputing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court and also taking the stand that the suit was barred by limitation - Trial court holding that it had jurisdiction to try the suit and dismissing the suit as being barred by limitation - Lower appellate court as well as High Court affirming the decision and dismissing the appeal - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that the trial court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. Applicability of Section 46 of the Contract Act and several other pleas available to the defendants which were required to be considered, cannot enable the dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation. Matter accordingly remitted to trial court for fresh consideration of all the issues.Agreement for sale of property - Form of contract and execution of deeds - Performance of contract - Limitation for raising the plea of specific performance - Private limited company (company) owning certain property entering into an agreement with first respondent for sale - Agreement for sale dated 18.4.1971 -Company receiving advance amount for sale - In May 1971 company filing a suit against some persons claiming ownership over the property and obtaining a consent decree on 3.5.1978 - Thereafter first respondent writing letters on 12-11-1979, 11.1.1980, 5.1.1981 and 8.10.1984 asking the company to execute and register the sale deed - Company also assuring the first respondent that it would do the needful - However on 21.8.1985 company refusing to execute and register the deed on the plea that the same became barred by limitation - First respondent filing suit for specific performance in 1985 - During pendency of the suit company selling the property to appellant - Appellant contesting the suit and disputing its maintainability - Trial court decreeing the suit - Appeals there against dismissed by the lower appellate court as well as High Court. Dismissing further appeal held that since the period of limitation got extended by conduct of the parties the suit was not barred. Execution of the agreement by the company in favour of the first respondent had not been denied at any stage. Even in the absence of any resolution on the part of the company or official seal of the company in the agreement the contract could not be held to be invalid or illegal. Decretal of the suit for specific performance consequently upheld.

Temporary injunction — Refusal — Validity — Suit for cancellation of sale deeds — Purchaser under sale deed in question was close relative and adopted son of seller, his right to sell his property was not in dispute — Purchaser had sufficient funds to purchase said agricultural land in question and adoption prima facie appeared to be genuine — Plaintiffs did not have a prima facie case in their favour for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendants from further alienating property or to direct status quo of suit property to be maintained — Validity of sale deed in question will be determined on basis of further evidence — Refusal to grant temporary injunction, proper.

Specific performance — Suit for — Agreement to sell — Defence that time was essence of contract and plaintiff failed to pay within time — Agreement though specified time for execution of sale deed — Stipulation for forfeiture of earnest money in event of failure to execute sale deed also made — Indicates that time was never intended by parties to be of essence — Defendant could not substantiate plea that time was essence of contract and that it was plaintiffs who avoided to perform their part — Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to decree. 1997 AIR SCW 956, Disting. (2004) 8 SCC 689, 1993 AIR SCW 1371, Relied on.

Rajasthan Land Revenue Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Construction of Cinemas, Hotels and Establishment of Petrol Pumps Rules (1978), R. 7 — Application for allotment of land — Scrutiny and enquiry of applications — R. 7(1) gives discretion to Collector to send application for advice of Chief town Planner — Word ‘enquiry’ denotes that in scrutinising application, Collector would collect all information about land in question and invite objections from inhabitants residing in village where land was situated —Order of Collector on its face showing that there has not been judicial exercise of discretion and objections from inhabitants were not invited — Collector has not assigned any reason as to why application was not sent to Chief Town Planner for his advice — Order of allotment set aside.Allotment of agricultural land to landless person - Subsequent cancellation - Ground that petitioner was not a landless person at time of allotment as he held a notional share in ancestral agricultural land of his father - Finding recorded by Additional Collector that petitioner was not a landless person was based on misconstruction and misapplication of relevant law on subject - He based his findings on circular of revenue department but completely ignored schedule appended to Rules of 1955 which was then available on statute book - Order cancelling allotment - Constituted error apparent on face of record -Liable to be set aside

aipur Development Authority (Jaipur Region), Building Bye-laws (2000) Bye-law 19.8 — Floor area ratio — Fixation, of — Auction of property — Sale deed stipulating that floor area ratio was 1.0 in terms of bye-laws then existing — Sale deed further providing that buyer gets additional floor area ratio consequent upon any changes in bye-laws — New Bye-laws of 2000 increasing floor area ratio but specifically providing that increase in floor ratio would not apply to plots sold in auction — Effect of such bye-law cannot be ignored — Plea of estoppel cannot be invoked in such case. Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 115. D. B. Civil Spl. Appeal No. 10 of 2005, D/- 2-3-2006 (Raj), Reversed.

Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban) Rules (1974), R. 15 — Allotment of land to Indian Oil Corporation for setting up retail outlets — Arbitrariness — Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) is public-sector Undertaking fully owned by Government of India — It is discharging functions of distribution and supply of petrol and other petroleum products thereby serving public demands as per policy laid down by Government which is in furtherance of interest and welfare of public — I.O.C. not required to have permission or licence to set up retail outlets — I.O.C. had allotted ‘A’ sites for setting up retail outlets to physically handicapped candidates and one such site was being run by itself — Action of J.D.A. in deciding to allot these sites to I.O.C. not arbitrary or unreasonable.

Sale deed — Endorsement by Sub-Registrar about registration — Presumption as to execution of deed and payment of sale consideration — Rebuttal — Executant lady was illiterate woman who could not read or write — She was issueless widow who observed parda all along while appearing before public authorities etc. — She treated defendant as her son and reposed full confidence in him — Evidence showing lump sum papers were put up before lady for obtaining her signatures and thumb impressions by defendant while she was sitting in rickshaw covered from all sides — Immediately thereafter she went back on pre-arranged taxi for her abode — All these circumstances speak against defendant and presumption in question was held to be rebutted by strong evidence.

Registration of document — Proceedings before Registrar are of quasi judicial nature — Signature on document alleged to have been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence and mistake by executant — Registering Authority has no jurisdiction to go into these questions — Aforesaid questions have to be gone into by competent Civil Court — Person who is aggrieved by finding of Registrar can challenge sale deed under S. 31 of Specific Relief Act, in competent civil Court — Civil Court shall go into issue regarding due execution independently, on basis of evidence adduced before it , without in any way being influenced by finding of Registrar.

Estoppel — Revenue proceedings for mutation — Sister—™s statement before revenue authorities relinquishing her rights in favour of her brother — Mutation entry recording name of brother as exclusive owner, held binding on sister — She is estopped from contending contrary to her statement — Plea that there was no waiver, the relinquishment being not in writing and not registered — Not tenable — Sister cannot be permitted to take advantage of her own wrongs — Even if such statement is treated as family arrangement such statement is still binding as family arrangement may be oral and in each case registration is not necessary. AIR 1976 SC 807, Rel. on. Registration Act (16 of 1908), S. 17. Hindu Law

Rejection of plaint - Agreement between appellant and respondent association - Appellant agreed to build and develop property, owned by ~4~ Appellant was to call upon the respondent by notice, to register a lease deed in respect of property, except the ground and first floor - Respondent accordingly called upon but no lease executed - Building completed in 1984 - Letter written on 4.11.84 - Suit for various reliefs filed in July 1990 - Phrase, 'barred by law' - If does not include operation of Limitation Act, 1963 - Receiver found that respondent had executed lease deeds on 3.4.88, 16.7.88 and 19.4.99 - Various claims made. Held that statement in plaint does not show if it is barred by law.

Unregistered sale deed - Admissibility - Suit for specific performance of contract - Defendantss case that plaintiff fraudulently obtained signatures on sale deed by stating it to be an agreement for sale and hence its registration was refused - Unregistered sale deed tendered as evidence - Plaintiffs case that sale deed executed by defendants not registered due to order of attachment of property - Same held to be inadmissible by trial court - Revision petition - Dismissed by High Court. Held having regard to the proviso to Section 49 the courts below erred in not admitting the unregistered sale deed. Under the proviso unregistered document affecting immovable property and required to be registered by 1908 Act/ Transfer of Property Act, 1882 may be admitted as evidence of contract in a suit for specific performance or of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. Thus an unregistered sale deed was admissible as proof of an oral agreement of sale but not as evidence of a completed sale.

Ready and willing to perform — Pleading and proof — Specific performance — Suit for — Plaintiff has to show that his conduct has been blemishless throughout — Provision imposes personal bar in event of plaintiff failing to do so — In suit, there was claim in respect of particular khasra number which did not form part of agreement — Plaint itself indicated that said khasra number was added later on — There was also an averment to effect that agreement related to a completed sale — Dismissal of suit on ground that requirements of S. 16(c) were not met — No interference. 2005 AIR SCW 4789, 2000 AIR SCW 2554, 1999 AIR SCW 2959, AIR 1968 SC 1355, Rel. on.

The discretion u/S. 34 which the Court has to exercise is a judicial discretion. That discretion has to be exercised on well-settled principles. Therefore, the Court has consider the nature of obligation in respect of which performance is sought, circumstances under which the decision came to be made, the conduct of the parties and the effect of the Court granting the decree. In such cases, the Court has to look at the contract. The Court has to ascertain whether there exists an element of mutuality in the contract. If there is absence of mutuality the Court will not exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiff. Even if, want of mutuality is regarded as discretionary and not as an absolute bar to specific performance the Court has to consider the entire conduct of the parties in relation to the subject-matter and in case of any disqualifying circumstances the Court will not grant the relief prayed for.

Agreement to sell — Specific performance of — Contract made by agent of purchasers — Purchasers knowing fully well that owner of property would not sell property to them in view of earlier disputes between them entered into agreement with third person as their agent — That third person by misrepresenting that he wanted to purchase property for himself obtained consent of owners of property — Such consent obtained by fraud or misrepresentation is not free consent — Such contract is voidable at instance of owner — Fact that third person was agent of purchasers was disclosed for first time in notice for specific performance — Hence even under S. 231 owners can refuse to fulfill contract — Decree for specific performance liable to be set aside.

Void agreement — Defendant, under belief that virtue of allotment order itself he had authority to sell away property, which he got allotted from Development Authority — Allotment order showed by defendant to plaintiff and the latter believed that defendant had authority to sell away said property in her favour and under that belief she agreed to purchase same — Both plaintiff and defendant proceeded with transaction under a mistake as to fact that defendant had authority under said allotment order to sell property and, therefore, they entered into said agreement of sale — Said mistake of fact was mutual between both parties besides being essential for said agreement — By virtue of provisions of S. 20 said agreement of sale became void and unenforceable in law.

Temporary injunction — Refusal — Validity — Suit for cancellation of sale deeds — Purchaser under sale deed in question was close relative and adopted son of seller, his right to sell his property was not in dispute — Purchaser had sufficient funds to purchase said agricultural land in question and adoption prima facie appeared to be genuine — Plaintiffs did not have a prima facie case in their favour for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendants from further alienating property or to direct status quo of suit property to be maintained — Validity of sale deed in question will be determined on basis of further evidence — Refusal to grant temporary injunction, proper

Causing death by negligence — Proof — Accused allegedly driving tempo-truck at high speed hit motor cyclist — Path of movement of vehicles must be sought to be established in course of investigation and not be left open to ambiguity and doubt — Questions whether motor cyclist was taking turn on a green light or a red light and so too whether petitioner was driving tempo/truck crossing green light or a red light remained unanswered as site plan had not been exhibited — Non-examination of investigating officer resulted in prejudice being caused to accused — Testimony of head constable that accused was driving vehicle at “high speed” — Expression “high speed” is an unclear expression — No evidence to conclusively indicate that accused was driving vehicle in rash and negligent manner — Accused is entitled to be acquitted. 1998 SCC (Cri) 1508 Folletting aside ex parte decree — Expression sufficient cause— — Meaning — Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. Words and Phrases — Sufficient cause— — Meaning. Notice served by registered post as well as by publication in newspaper — Presumption of service — Presumption cannot be rebutted by bald statement made by wife that she was living at different address with her brother — Respondent wife made no attempt to establish there had been fraud or collusion between husband and postman — No case that “National Herald†daily newspaper published from Delhi did not have wide circulation in Delhi or in area where wife was residing with her brother — Ex parte decree, not liable to be set aside.

An order passed by a person lacking inherent jurisdiction would be a nullity. The principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or even res judicata which are procedural in nature would have no application in a case where an order has been passed by the Tribunal/Court which has no authority in that behalf. Any order passed by a Court without jurisdiction would be coram non judice being a nullity, the same ordinarily should not be given effect to. However, a distinction must be made between a decree passed by a Court which has no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction in the light of Section 21 and a decree passed by a Court having no jurisdiction in regard to the subject-matter of the suit. Whereas in the former case, the appellate Court may not interfere with the decree unless prejudice is shown, ordinarily the second category of the cases would be interfered with.

Application for rejection of plaint — Ground that Civil Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute — Rejection — Validity — Dispute relating to securities transaction — Under rules and by-laws framed by Bombay Stock Exchange for any dispute between Broker, Sub-Broker and client, specific provision of arbitration was provided and dispute was required to be sent for arbitration before Arbitration Committee constituted by Bombay Stock Exchange — By-laws of Bombay Stock Exchange not considered while deciding application under O. 7, R. 11 — Improper — Matter remitted for decision afresh.

Ancestral property — Succession prior to 1994 amendment — Father having seven sons three daughters — His ancestral property prior to his death would be divided in eight equal parts i.e. 1/8th for himself and 1/8th each for the seven sons — Each of the sons will get 1/8th share in the total property — On the demise of father his 1/8th share will go to his widow — It would be only on the demise of his widow the seven sons and three daughters will get equal share in the share held by her — On her death the seven sons and three daughters thus will each get 1/10 share from the 1/8th share of the total property and, therefore, each one of them will have 1/8th share in the total property — Order of Court making 11 parts of total property inherited by father by treating 11 coparcener in all i.e. father, seven son and three daughters not proper as married daughters could not get equal shares with sons prior to (1994) amendment introducing chapter II-A consisting of Ss. 29A to 29C

, after filing of rejoinder by the plaintiff respondent. The trial Court, after perusing the pleadings of the averments of the plaint as well as reply and rejoinder, reached to the conclusion that the matter requires proper adjudication because, prima facie, case was made out from the plain reading of the plaint and therefore rejection of application filed by defendant under O. 7, r. 11 was not erroneous because, upon perusal of plaint, cause of action warranting adjudication by the Court was in existence.

third party—™ liability — Deceased succumbed to injuries sustained while attempting to board goods carrier from behind — Evidence shows that driver of vehicle enabled deceased board vehicle and for whatever reasons suddenly moved vehicle and in such process deceased fell down and succumbed to injuries sustained by him — Even though driver carried out an unauthorized act of carrying passenger in goods vehicle — Owner cannot be absolved of its vicarious liability for negligent careless act of driver — Deceased covered very much within phrase — .third party—™ insurance company liable to reimburse ownerک

Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) - O. 7, R. 11(d) — Re-jection of plaint — Ground of limitation — If a suit on face of it is barred by limitation it can be rejected under O. 7, R. 11 of Code — However question whether suit is within limitation is to be considered only on basis of averments in plaint. If a suit is on the face of it barred by limitation it can be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code. In such a case it is not necessary to push the parties to trial merely because limitation is mixed question of fact and law. But it does not follow that the objections of the defendant to the date shown in the plaint as the date of accrual of cause of action can be looked into at that stage. The question whether the suit is within limitation or not would have to be considered by the Court for the purpose of application for rejection of plaint only on the basis of averments in the plaint.Limitation Act (36 of 1963) - Art. 54 — Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 20 — Suit for specific performance of contract — Starting point of limitation — If date is not fixed in contract limitation starts from date of refusal on part of defendant to perform contract — Refusal requires demand by plaintiff and if demand is refused, that gives cause of action — Refusal to re-deliver possession by defendant will not give rise to cause of action — Cause of action was for demand of execution of sale deed — Plaint does not show as to when demand was made by plaintiff for registering sale deed in his favour — Burden is on plaintiff to show that there was embargo to be lifted by Govt. and it had prevented plaintiff from seeking registration of the sale — Waiting for 19 years, does not give right to plaintiff to sue for specific performance, but for penalty of Rs. 30,000/-

Suit for eviction — Default in payment of rent — Rent provisionally determined in terms of S. 13(3) of 1950 Act — But no order passed by trial court in suit and defence of tenant was not struck off — Subsequent withdrawal of suit after enforcement of Act of 2001 — No provision akin to provisions of S. 13(3) to 13(5) of the Act of 1950, providing for determination of rent provisionally or striking out defence on account of non payment of amount determined provisionally or monthly rent subsequent thereto, incorporated in Act of 2001 — Question of striking out the defence of the tenant in proceedings for eviction u/S. 9 of the Act of 2001 would not arise — Even if, any such right had accrued to petitioner during pendency of eviction proceedings before trial Court under Act of 1950, the same cannot be enforced in fresh eviction proceedings lodged under provisions of S. 9 of Act of 2001.Amendment in written statement — Permissibility — Crutial date is date of petition — Suit for eviction of tenant from shop — Amendment sought in appeal to incorporate plea that ground of bona fide necessity ceased to exist due to appointment of son of landlord in Bank — Fact of appointment was not in existence at stage of trial — If such application will be allowed at appellate stage then certainly at every stage after adjudication, parties will take plea of amendment and no trial Court will be able to adjudicate matter finally and there will be no end of dispute — Said ground cannot be allowed to take away ground of personal bona fide necessity of landlord — Amendment cannot be allowed. AIR 2005 SC 1274, Rel. on. AIR 2007 SC 2511, AIR 2002 SC 3369, Disting

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.

Suit for Specific performance of contract - Limitation -- Appellant entering into an agreement for sale of his land to respondent in October 1982 - Respondent upon paying certain amount as earnest money put in physical possession of the land -Sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered upon disposal of an appeal pending in High Court - As per the sale agreement respondent was to repay an amount of Rs. 42,000 to a bank being the loan taken by the appellant from the bank - Bank having filed a suit for recovery appellant issuing notice to respondent on 24-4-1984 directing him to pay the loan amount to the bank and get the sale deed executed within 15 days failing which the agreement shall stand cancelled - Respondent depositing an amount of only Rs. 10,000 in the bank on 25-5-1985 - On 26-9-1989 respondent filing a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale - Trial court decreeing the suit - Lower appellate court however holding the suit to be barred by limitation - On further appeal High Court holding that since time was not the essence of the contract the suit was not barred and accordingly remitting the matter to the lower appellate court - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that since the suit was not filed within three years from the date of expiry of the period of fifteen days specified in the notice dated 24-4-1984 it was barred by limitation.Suit for specific performance of agreement of sale - Suit filed almost 29 years after the sale agreement - Defendant disputing the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court and also taking the stand that the suit was barred by limitation - Trial court holding that it had jurisdiction to try the suit and dismissing the suit as being barred by limitation - Lower appellate court as well as High Court affirming the decision and dismissing the appeal - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that the trial court had the jurisdiction to try the suit. Applicability of Section 46 of the Contract Act and several other pleas available to the defendants which were required to be considered, cannot enable the dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation. Matter accordingly remitted to trial court for fresh consideration of all the issues.Agreement for sale of property - Form of contract and execution of deeds - Performance of contract - Limitation for raising the plea of specific performance - Private limited company (company) owning certain property entering into an agreement with first respondent for sale - Agreement for sale dated 18.4.1971 -Company receiving advance amount for sale - In May 1971 company filing a suit against some persons claiming ownership over the property and obtaining a consent decree on 3.5.1978 - Thereafter first respondent writing letters on 12-11-1979, 11.1.1980, 5.1.1981 and 8.10.1984 asking the company to execute and register the sale deed - Company also assuring the first respondent that it would do the needful - However on 21.8.1985 company refusing to execute and register the deed on the plea that the same became barred by limitation - First respondent filing suit for specific performance in 1985 - During pendency of the suit company selling the property to appellant - Appellant contesting the suit and disputing its maintainability - Trial court decreeing the suit - Appeals there against dismissed by the lower appellate court as well as High Court. Dismissing further appeal held that since the period of limitation got extended by conduct of the parties the suit was not barred. Execution of the agreement by the company in favour of the first respondent had not been denied at any stage. Even in the absence of any resolution on the part of the company or official seal of the company in the agreement the contract could not be held to be invalid or illegal. Decretal of the suit for specific performance consequently upheld.

Rajasthan Land Revenue Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Construction of Cinemas, Hotels and Establishment of Petrol Pumps Rules (1978), R. 7 — Application for allotment of land — Scrutiny and enquiry of applications — R. 7(1) gives discretion to Collector to send application for advice of Chief town Planner — Word ‘enquiry’ denotes that in scrutinising application, Collector would collect all information about land in question and invite objections from inhabitants residing in village where land was situated —Order of Collector on its face showing that there has not been judicial exercise of discretion and objections from inhabitants were not invited — Collector has not assigned any reason as to why application was not sent to Chief Town Planner for his advice — Order of allotment set aside.Allotment of agricultural land to landless person - Subsequent cancellation - Ground that petitioner was not a landless person at time of allotment as he held a notional share in ancestral agricultural land of his father - Finding recorded by Additional Collector that petitioner was not a landless person was based on misconstruction and misapplication of relevant law on subject - He based his findings on circular of revenue department but completely ignored schedule appended to Rules of 1955 which was then available on statute book - Order cancelling allotment - Constituted error apparent on face of record -Liable to be set aside

Rajasthan Urban Improvement Trust (Disposal of Urban) Rules (1974), R. 15 — Allotment of land to Indian Oil Corporation for setting up retail outlets — Arbitrariness — Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) is public-sector Undertaking fully owned by Government of India — It is discharging functions of distribution and supply of petrol and other petroleum products thereby serving public demands as per policy laid down by Government which is in furtherance of interest and welfare of public — I.O.C. not required to have permission or licence to set up retail outlets — I.O.C. had allotted ‘A’ sites for setting up retail outlets to physically handicapped candidates and one such site was being run by itself — Action of J.D.A. in deciding to allot these sites to I.O.C. not arbitrary or unreasonable.

Sale deed — Endorsement by Sub-Registrar about registration — Presumption as to execution of deed and payment of sale consideration — Rebuttal — Executant lady was illiterate woman who could not read or write — She was issueless widow who observed parda all along while appearing before public authorities etc. — She treated defendant as her son and reposed full confidence in him — Evidence showing lump sum papers were put up before lady for obtaining her signatures and thumb impressions by defendant while she was sitting in rickshaw covered from all sides — Immediately thereafter she went back on pre-arranged taxi for her abode — All these circumstances speak against defendant and presumption in question was held to be rebutted by strong evidence.

Unregistered sale deed - Admissibility - Suit for specific performance of contract - Defendantss case that plaintiff fraudulently obtained signatures on sale deed by stating it to be an agreement for sale and hence its registration was refused - Unregistered sale deed tendered as evidence - Plaintiffs case that sale deed executed by defendants not registered due to order of attachment of property - Same held to be inadmissible by trial court - Revision petition - Dismissed by High Court. Held having regard to the proviso to Section 49 the courts below erred in not admitting the unregistered sale deed. Under the proviso unregistered document affecting immovable property and required to be registered by 1908 Act/ Transfer of Property Act, 1882 may be admitted as evidence of contract in a suit for specific performance or of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. Thus an unregistered sale deed was admissible as proof of an oral agreement of sale but not as evidence of a completed sale.

The discretion u/S. 34 which the Court has to exercise is a judicial discretion. That discretion has to be exercised on well-settled principles. Therefore, the Court has consider the nature of obligation in respect of which performance is sought, circumstances under which the decision came to be made, the conduct of the parties and the effect of the Court granting the decree. In such cases, the Court has to look at the contract. The Court has to ascertain whether there exists an element of mutuality in the contract. If there is absence of mutuality the Court will not exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiff. Even if, want of mutuality is regarded as discretionary and not as an absolute bar to specific performance the Court has to consider the entire conduct of the parties in relation to the subject-matter and in case of any disqualifying circumstances the Court will not grant the relief prayed for.

Agreement to sell — Specific performance of — Contract made by agent of purchasers — Purchasers knowing fully well that owner of property would not sell property to them in view of earlier disputes between them entered into agreement with third person as their agent — That third person by misrepresenting that he wanted to purchase property for himself obtained consent of owners of property — Such consent obtained by fraud or misrepresentation is not free consent — Such contract is voidable at instance of owner — Fact that third person was agent of purchasers was disclosed for first time in notice for specific performance — Hence even under S. 231 owners can refuse to fulfill contract — Decree for specific performance liable to be set aside.

Void agreement — Defendant, under belief that virtue of allotment order itself he had authority to sell away property, which he got allotted from Development Authority — Allotment order showed by defendant to plaintiff and the latter believed that defendant had authority to sell away said property in her favour and under that belief she agreed to purchase same — Both plaintiff and defendant proceeded with transaction under a mistake as to fact that defendant had authority under said allotment order to sell property and, therefore, they entered into said agreement of sale — Said mistake of fact was mutual between both parties besides being essential for said agreement — By virtue of provisions of S. 20 said agreement of sale became void and unenforceable in law.

Temporary injunction — Refusal — Validity — Suit for cancellation of sale deeds — Purchaser under sale deed in question was close relative and adopted son of seller, his right to sell his property was not in dispute — Purchaser had sufficient funds to purchase said agricultural land in question and adoption prima facie appeared to be genuine — Plaintiffs did not have a prima facie case in their favour for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendants from further alienating property or to direct status quo of suit property to be maintained — Validity of sale deed in question will be determined on basis of further evidence — Refusal to grant temporary injunction, proper

Causing death by negligence — Proof — Accused allegedly driving tempo-truck at high speed hit motor cyclist — Path of movement of vehicles must be sought to be established in course of investigation and not be left open to ambiguity and doubt — Questions whether motor cyclist was taking turn on a green light or a red light and so too whether petitioner was driving tempo/truck crossing green light or a red light remained unanswered as site plan had not been exhibited — Non-examination of investigating officer resulted in prejudice being caused to accused — Testimony of head constable that accused was driving vehicle at “high speed” — Expression “high speed” is an unclear expression — No evidence to conclusively indicate that accused was driving vehicle in rash and negligent manner — Accused is entitled to be acquitted. 1998 SCC (Cri) 1508 Folletting aside ex parte decree — Expression sufficient cause— — Meaning — Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. Words and Phrases — Sufficient cause— — Meaning. Notice served by registered post as well as by publication in newspaper — Presumption of service — Presumption cannot be rebutted by bald statement made by wife that she was living at different address with her brother — Respondent wife made no attempt to establish there had been fraud or collusion between husband and postman — No case that “National Herald†daily newspaper published from Delhi did not have wide circulation in Delhi or in area where wife was residing with her brother — Ex parte decree, not liable to be set aside.

An order passed by a person lacking inherent jurisdiction would be a nullity. The principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or even res judicata which are procedural in nature would have no application in a case where an order has been passed by the Tribunal/Court which has no authority in that behalf. Any order passed by a Court without jurisdiction would be coram non judice being a nullity, the same ordinarily should not be given effect to. However, a distinction must be made between a decree passed by a Court which has no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction in the light of Section 21 and a decree passed by a Court having no jurisdiction in regard to the subject-matter of the suit. Whereas in the former case, the appellate Court may not interfere with the decree unless prejudice is shown, ordinarily the second category of the cases would be interfered with.

Ancestral property — Succession prior to 1994 amendment — Father having seven sons three daughters — His ancestral property prior to his death would be divided in eight equal parts i.e. 1/8th for himself and 1/8th each for the seven sons — Each of the sons will get 1/8th share in the total property — On the demise of father his 1/8th share will go to his widow — It would be only on the demise of his widow the seven sons and three daughters will get equal share in the share held by her — On her death the seven sons and three daughters thus will each get 1/10 share from the 1/8th share of the total property and, therefore, each one of them will have 1/8th share in the total property — Order of Court making 11 parts of total property inherited by father by treating 11 coparcener in all i.e. father, seven son and three daughters not proper as married daughters could not get equal shares with sons prior to (1994) amendment introducing chapter II-A consisting of Ss. 29A to 29C

, after filing of rejoinder by the plaintiff respondent. The trial Court, after perusing the pleadings of the averments of the plaint as well as reply and rejoinder, reached to the conclusion that the matter requires proper adjudication because, prima facie, case was made out from the plain reading of the plaint and therefore rejection of application filed by defendant under O. 7, r. 11 was not erroneous because, upon perusal of plaint, cause of action warranting adjudication by the Court was in existence.

third party—™ liability — Deceased succumbed to injuries sustained while attempting to board goods carrier from behind — Evidence shows that driver of vehicle enabled deceased board vehicle and for whatever reasons suddenly moved vehicle and in such process deceased fell down and succumbed to injuries sustained by him — Even though driver carried out an unauthorized act of carrying passenger in goods vehicle — Owner cannot be absolved of its vicarious liability for negligent careless act of driver — Deceased covered very much within phrase — .third party—™ insurance company liable to reimburse ownerک

Civil Procedure Code (5 of 1908) - O. 7, R. 11(d) — Re-jection of plaint — Ground of limitation — If a suit on face of it is barred by limitation it can be rejected under O. 7, R. 11 of Code — However question whether suit is within limitation is to be considered only on basis of averments in plaint. If a suit is on the face of it barred by limitation it can be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code. In such a case it is not necessary to push the parties to trial merely because limitation is mixed question of fact and law. But it does not follow that the objections of the defendant to the date shown in the plaint as the date of accrual of cause of action can be looked into at that stage. The question whether the suit is within limitation or not would have to be considered by the Court for the purpose of application for rejection of plaint only on the basis of averments in the plaint.Limitation Act (36 of 1963) - Art. 54 — Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S. 20 — Suit for specific performance of contract — Starting point of limitation — If date is not fixed in contract limitation starts from date of refusal on part of defendant to perform contract — Refusal requires demand by plaintiff and if demand is refused, that gives cause of action — Refusal to re-deliver possession by defendant will not give rise to cause of action — Cause of action was for demand of execution of sale deed — Plaint does not show as to when demand was made by plaintiff for registering sale deed in his favour — Burden is on plaintiff to show that there was embargo to be lifted by Govt. and it had prevented plaintiff from seeking registration of the sale — Waiting for 19 years, does not give right to plaintiff to sue for specific performance, but for penalty of Rs. 30,000/-

Suit for eviction — Default in payment of rent — Rent provisionally determined in terms of S. 13(3) of 1950 Act — But no order passed by trial court in suit and defence of tenant was not struck off — Subsequent withdrawal of suit after enforcement of Act of 2001 — No provision akin to provisions of S. 13(3) to 13(5) of the Act of 1950, providing for determination of rent provisionally or striking out defence on account of non payment of amount determined provisionally or monthly rent subsequent thereto, incorporated in Act of 2001 — Question of striking out the defence of the tenant in proceedings for eviction u/S. 9 of the Act of 2001 would not arise — Even if, any such right had accrued to petitioner during pendency of eviction proceedings before trial Court under Act of 1950, the same cannot be enforced in fresh eviction proceedings lodged under provisions of S. 9 of Act of 2001.

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.

Suit for Specific performance of contract - Limitation -- Appellant entering into an agreement for sale of his land to respondent in October 1982 - Respondent upon paying certain amount as earnest money put in physical possession of the land -Sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered upon disposal of an appeal pending in High Court - As per the sale agreement respondent was to repay an amount of Rs. 42,000 to a bank being the loan taken by the appellant from the bank - Bank having filed a suit for recovery appellant issuing notice to respondent on 24-4-1984 directing him to pay the loan amount to the bank and get the sale deed executed within 15 days failing which the agreement shall stand cancelled - Respondent depositing an amount of only Rs. 10,000 in the bank on 25-5-1985 - On 26-9-1989 respondent filing a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale - Trial court decreeing the suit - Lower appellate court however holding the suit to be barred by limitation - On further appeal High Court holding that since time was not the essence of the contract the suit was not barred and accordingly remitting the matter to the lower appellate court - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that since the suit was not filed within three years from the date of expiry of the period of fifteen days specified in the notice dated 24-4-1984 it was barred by limitation.

Agreement for sale of property - Form of contract and execution of deeds - Performance of contract - Limitation for raising the plea of specific performance - Private limited company (company) owning certain property entering into an agreement with first respondent for sale - Agreement for sale dated 18.4.1971 -Company receiving advance amount for sale - In May 1971 company filing a suit against some persons claiming ownership over the property and obtaining a consent decree on 3.5.1978 - Thereafter first respondent writing letters on 12-11-1979, 11.1.1980, 5.1.1981 and 8.10.1984 asking the company to execute and register the sale deed - Company also assuring the first respondent that it would do the needful - However on 21.8.1985 company refusing to execute and register the deed on the plea that the same became barred by limitation - First respondent filing suit for specific performance in 1985 - During pendency of the suit company selling the property to appellant - Appellant contesting the suit and disputing its maintainability - Trial court decreeing the suit - Appeals there against dismissed by the lower appellate court as well as High Court. Dismissing further appeal held that since the period of limitation got extended by conduct of the parties the suit was not barred. Execution of the agreement by the company in favour of the first respondent had not been denied at any stage. Even in the absence of any resolution on the part of the company or official seal of the company in the agreement the contract could not be held to be invalid or illegal. Decretal of the suit for specific performance consequently upheld.

Rajasthan Land Revenue Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Construction of Cinemas, Hotels and Establishment of Petrol Pumps Rules (1978), R. 7 — Application for allotment of land — Scrutiny and enquiry of applications — R. 7(1) gives discretion to Collector to send application for advice of Chief town Planner — Word ‘enquiry’ denotes that in scrutinising application, Collector would collect all information about land in question and invite objections from inhabitants residing in village where land was situated —Order of Collector on its face showing that there has not been judicial exercise of discretion and objections from inhabitants were not invited — Collector has not assigned any reason as to why application was not sent to Chief Town Planner for his advice — Order of allotment set aside.Allotment of agricultural land to landless person - Subsequent cancellation - Ground that petitioner was not a landless person at time of allotment as he held a notional share in ancestral agricultural land of his father - Finding recorded by Additional Collector that petitioner was not a landless person was based on misconstruction and misapplication of relevant law on subject - He based his findings on circular of revenue department but completely ignored schedule appended to Rules of 1955 which was then available on statute book - Order cancelling allotment - Constituted error apparent on face of record -Liable to be set aside

Unregistered sale deed - Admissibility - Suit for specific performance of contract - Defendantss case that plaintiff fraudulently obtained signatures on sale deed by stating it to be an agreement for sale and hence its registration was refused - Unregistered sale deed tendered as evidence - Plaintiffs case that sale deed executed by defendants not registered due to order of attachment of property - Same held to be inadmissible by trial court - Revision petition - Dismissed by High Court. Held having regard to the proviso to Section 49 the courts below erred in not admitting the unregistered sale deed. Under the proviso unregistered document affecting immovable property and required to be registered by 1908 Act/ Transfer of Property Act, 1882 may be admitted as evidence of contract in a suit for specific performance or of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. Thus an unregistered sale deed was admissible as proof of an oral agreement of sale but not as evidence of a completed sale.

The discretion u/S. 34 which the Court has to exercise is a judicial discretion. That discretion has to be exercised on well-settled principles. Therefore, the Court has consider the nature of obligation in respect of which performance is sought, circumstances under which the decision came to be made, the conduct of the parties and the effect of the Court granting the decree. In such cases, the Court has to look at the contract. The Court has to ascertain whether there exists an element of mutuality in the contract. If there is absence of mutuality the Court will not exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiff. Even if, want of mutuality is regarded as discretionary and not as an absolute bar to specific performance the Court has to consider the entire conduct of the parties in relation to the subject-matter and in case of any disqualifying circumstances the Court will not grant the relief prayed for.

Causing death by negligence — Proof — Accused allegedly driving tempo-truck at high speed hit motor cyclist — Path of movement of vehicles must be sought to be established in course of investigation and not be left open to ambiguity and doubt — Questions whether motor cyclist was taking turn on a green light or a red light and so too whether petitioner was driving tempo/truck crossing green light or a red light remained unanswered as site plan had not been exhibited — Non-examination of investigating officer resulted in prejudice being caused to accused — Testimony of head constable that accused was driving vehicle at “high speed” — Expression “high speed” is an unclear expression — No evidence to conclusively indicate that accused was driving vehicle in rash and negligent manner — Accused is entitled to be acquitted. 1998 SCC (Cri) 1508 Foll

An order passed by a person lacking inherent jurisdiction would be a nullity. The principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or even res judicata which are procedural in nature would have no application in a case where an order has been passed by the Tribunal/Court which has no authority in that behalf. Any order passed by a Court without jurisdiction would be coram non judice being a nullity, the same ordinarily should not be given effect to. However, a distinction must be made between a decree passed by a Court which has no territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction in the light of Section 21 and a decree passed by a Court having no jurisdiction in regard to the subject-matter of the suit. Whereas in the former case, the appellate Court may not interfere with the decree unless prejudice is shown, ordinarily the second category of the cases would be interfered with.

Ancestral property — Succession prior to 1994 amendment — Father having seven sons three daughters — His ancestral property prior to his death would be divided in eight equal parts i.e. 1/8th for himself and 1/8th each for the seven sons — Each of the sons will get 1/8th share in the total property — On the demise of father his 1/8th share will go to his widow — It would be only on the demise of his widow the seven sons and three daughters will get equal share in the share held by her — On her death the seven sons and three daughters thus will each get 1/10 share from the 1/8th share of the total property and, therefore, each one of them will have 1/8th share in the total property — Order of Court making 11 parts of total property inherited by father by treating 11 coparcener in all i.e. father, seven son and three daughters not proper as married daughters could not get equal shares with sons prior to (1994) amendment introducing chapter II-A consisting of Ss. 29A to 29C

was not erroneous because, upon perusal of plaint, cause of action warranting adjudication by the Court was in existence.

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.

Suit for Specific performance of contract - Limitation -- Appellant entering into an agreement for sale of his land to respondent in October 1982 - Respondent upon paying certain amount as earnest money put in physical possession of the land -Sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered upon disposal of an appeal pending in High Court - As per the sale agreement respondent was to repay an amount of Rs. 42,000 to a bank being the loan taken by the appellant from the bank - Bank having filed a suit for recovery appellant issuing notice to respondent on 24-4-1984 directing him to pay the loan amount to the bank and get the sale deed executed within 15 days failing which the agreement shall stand cancelled - Respondent depositing an amount of only Rs. 10,000 in the bank on 25-5-1985 - On 26-9-1989 respondent filing a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale - Trial court decreeing the suit - Lower appellate court however holding the suit to be barred by limitation - On further appeal High Court holding that since time was not the essence of the contract the suit was not barred and accordingly remitting the matter to the lower appellate court - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that since the suit was not filed within three years from the date of expiry of the period of fifteen days specified in the notice dated 24-4-1984 it was barred by limitation.

Agreement for sale of property - Form of contract and execution of deeds - Performance of contract - Limitation for raising the plea of specific performance - Private limited company (company) owning certain property entering into an agreement with first respondent for sale - Agreement for sale dated 18.4.1971 -Company receiving advance amount for sale - In May 1971 company filing a suit against some persons claiming ownership over the property and obtaining a consent decree on 3.5.1978 - Thereafter first respondent writing letters on 12-11-1979, 11.1.1980, 5.1.1981 and 8.10.1984 asking the company to execute and register the sale deed - Company also assuring the first respondent that it would do the needful - However on 21.8.1985 company refusing to execute and register the deed on the plea that the same became barred by limitation - First respondent filing suit for specific performance in 1985 - During pendency of the suit company selling the property to appellant - Appellant contesting the suit and disputing its maintainability - Trial court decreeing the suit - Appeals there against dismissed by the lower appellate court as well as High Court. Dismissing further appeal held that since the period of limitation got extended by conduct of the parties the suit was not barred. Execution of the agreement by the company in favour of the first respondent had not been denied at any stage. Even in the absence of any resolution on the part of the company or official seal of the company in the agreement the contract could not be held to be invalid or illegal. Decretal of the suit for specific performance consequently upheld.

Rajasthan Land Revenue Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Construction of Cinemas, Hotels and Establishment of Petrol Pumps Rules (1978), R. 7 — Application for allotment of land — Scrutiny and enquiry of applications — R. 7(1) gives discretion to Collector to send application for advice of Chief town Planner — Word ‘enquiry’ denotes that in scrutinising application, Collector would collect all information about land in question and invite objections from inhabitants residing in village where land was situated —Order of Collector on its face showing that there has not been judicial exercise of discretion and objections from inhabitants were not invited — Collector has not assigned any reason as to why application was not sent to Chief Town Planner for his advice — Order of allotment set aside.

Unregistered sale deed - Admissibility - Suit for specific performance of contract - Defendantss case that plaintiff fraudulently obtained signatures on sale deed by stating it to be an agreement for sale and hence its registration was refused - Unregistered sale deed tendered as evidence - Plaintiffs case that sale deed executed by defendants not registered due to order of attachment of property - Same held to be inadmissible by trial court - Revision petition - Dismissed by High Court. Held having regard to the proviso to Section 49 the courts below erred in not admitting the unregistered sale deed. Under the proviso unregistered document affecting immovable property and required to be registered by 1908 Act/ Transfer of Property Act, 1882 may be admitted as evidence of contract in a suit for specific performance or of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument. Thus an unregistered sale deed was admissible as proof of an oral agreement of sale but not as evidence of a completed sale.

Causing death by negligence — Proof — Accused allegedly driving tempo-truck at high speed hit motor cyclist — Path of movement of vehicles must be sought to be established in course of investigation and not be left open to ambiguity and doubt — Questions whether motor cyclist was taking turn on a green light or a red light and so too whether petitioner was driving tempo/truck crossing green light or a red light remained unanswered as site plan had not been exhibited — Non-examination of investigating officer resulted in prejudice being caused to accused — Testimony of head constable that accused was driving vehicle at “high speed” — Expression “high speed” is an unclear expression — No evidence to conclusively indicate that accused was driving vehicle in rash and negligent manner — Accused is entitled to be acquitted. 1998 SCC (Cri) 1508 Foll

Ancestral property — Succession prior to 1994 amendment — Father having seven sons three daughters — His ancestral property prior to his death would be divided in eight equal parts i.e. 1/8th for himself and 1/8th each for the seven sons — Each of the sons will get 1/8th share in the total property — On the demise of father his 1/8th share will go to his widow — It would be only on the demise of his widow the seven sons and three daughters will get equal share in the share held by her — On her death the seven sons and three daughters thus will each get 1/10 share from the 1/8th share of the total property and, therefore, each one of them will have 1/8th share in the total property — Order of Court making 11 parts of total property inherited by father by treating 11 coparcener in all i.e. father, seven son and three daughters not proper as married daughters could not get equal shares with sons prior to (1994) amendment introducing chapter II-A consisting of Ss. 29A to 29C

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.

Suit for Specific performance of contract - Limitation -- Appellant entering into an agreement for sale of his land to respondent in October 1982 - Respondent upon paying certain amount as earnest money put in physical possession of the land -Sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered upon disposal of an appeal pending in High Court - As per the sale agreement respondent was to repay an amount of Rs. 42,000 to a bank being the loan taken by the appellant from the bank - Bank having filed a suit for recovery appellant issuing notice to respondent on 24-4-1984 directing him to pay the loan amount to the bank and get the sale deed executed within 15 days failing which the agreement shall stand cancelled - Respondent depositing an amount of only Rs. 10,000 in the bank on 25-5-1985 - On 26-9-1989 respondent filing a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale - Trial court decreeing the suit - Lower appellate court however holding the suit to be barred by limitation - On further appeal High Court holding that since time was not the essence of the contract the suit was not barred and accordingly remitting the matter to the lower appellate court - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that since the suit was not filed within three years from the date of expiry of the period of fifteen days specified in the notice dated 24-4-1984 it was barred by limitation.

Agreement for sale of property - Form of contract and execution of deeds - Performance of contract - Limitation for raising the plea of specific performance - Private limited company (company) owning certain property entering into an agreement with first respondent for sale - Agreement for sale dated 18.4.1971 -Company receiving advance amount for sale - In May 1971 company filing a suit against some persons claiming ownership over the property and obtaining a consent decree on 3.5.1978 - Thereafter first respondent writing letters on 12-11-1979, 11.1.1980, 5.1.1981 and 8.10.1984 asking the company to execute and register the sale deed - Company also assuring the first respondent that it would do the needful - However on 21.8.1985 company refusing to execute and register the deed on the plea that the same became barred by limitation - First respondent filing suit for specific performance in 1985 - During pendency of the suit company selling the property to appellant - Appellant contesting the suit and disputing its maintainability - Trial court decreeing the suit - Appeals there against dismissed by the lower appellate court as well as High Court. Dismissing further appeal held that since the period of limitation got extended by conduct of the parties the suit was not barred. Execution of the agreement by the company in favour of the first respondent had not been denied at any stage. Even in the absence of any resolution on the part of the company or official seal of the company in the agreement the contract could not be held to be invalid or illegal. Decretal of the suit for specific performance consequently upheld.

Rajasthan Land Revenue Allotment, Conversion and Regularisation of Agricultural Land for Construction of Cinemas, Hotels and Establishment of Petrol Pumps Rules (1978), R. 7 — Application for allotment of land — Scrutiny and enquiry of applications — R. 7(1) gives discretion to Collector to send application for advice of Chief town Planner — Word ‘enquiry’ denotes that in scrutinising application, Collector would collect all information about land in question and invite objections from inhabitants residing in village where land was situated —Order of Collector on its face showing that there has not been judicial exercise of discretion and objections from inhabitants were not invited — Collector has not assigned any reason as to why application was not sent to Chief Town Planner for his advice — Order of allotment set aside.

Ancestral property — Succession prior to 1994 amendment — Father having seven sons three daughters — His ancestral property prior to his death would be divided in eight equal parts i.e. 1/8th for himself and 1/8th each for the seven sons — Each of the sons will get 1/8th share in the total property — On the demise of father his 1/8th share will go to his widow — It would be only on the demise of his widow the seven sons and three daughters will get equal share in the share held by her — On her death the seven sons and three daughters thus will each get 1/10 share from the 1/8th share of the total property and, therefore, each one of them will have 1/8th share in the total property — Order of Court making 11 parts of total property inherited by father by treating 11 coparcener in all i.e. father, seven son and three daughters not proper as married daughters could not get equal shares with sons prior to (1994) amendment introducing chapter II-A consisting of Ss. 29A to 29C

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.

Suit for Specific performance of contract - Limitation -- Appellant entering into an agreement for sale of his land to respondent in October 1982 - Respondent upon paying certain amount as earnest money put in physical possession of the land -Sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered upon disposal of an appeal pending in High Court - As per the sale agreement respondent was to repay an amount of Rs. 42,000 to a bank being the loan taken by the appellant from the bank - Bank having filed a suit for recovery appellant issuing notice to respondent on 24-4-1984 directing him to pay the loan amount to the bank and get the sale deed executed within 15 days failing which the agreement shall stand cancelled - Respondent depositing an amount of only Rs. 10,000 in the bank on 25-5-1985 - On 26-9-1989 respondent filing a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale - Trial court decreeing the suit - Lower appellate court however holding the suit to be barred by limitation - On further appeal High Court holding that since time was not the essence of the contract the suit was not barred and accordingly remitting the matter to the lower appellate court - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that since the suit was not filed within three years from the date of expiry of the period of fifteen days specified in the notice dated 24-4-1984 it was barred by limitation.

Agreement for sale of property - Form of contract and execution of deeds - Performance of contract - Limitation for raising the plea of specific performance - Private limited company (company) owning certain property entering into an agreement with first respondent for sale - Agreement for sale dated 18.4.1971 -Company receiving advance amount for sale - In May 1971 company filing a suit against some persons claiming ownership over the property and obtaining a consent decree on 3.5.1978 - Thereafter first respondent writing letters on 12-11-1979, 11.1.1980, 5.1.1981 and 8.10.1984 asking the company to execute and register the sale deed - Company also assuring the first respondent that it would do the needful - However on 21.8.1985 company refusing to execute and register the deed on the plea that the same became barred by limitation - First respondent filing suit for specific performance in 1985 - During pendency of the suit company selling the property to appellant - Appellant contesting the suit and disputing its maintainability - Trial court decreeing the suit - Appeals there against dismissed by the lower appellate court as well as High Court. Dismissing further appeal held that since the period of limitation got extended by conduct of the parties the suit was not barred. Execution of the agreement by the company in favour of the first respondent had not been denied at any stage. Even in the absence of any resolution on the part of the company or official seal of the company in the agreement the contract could not be held to be invalid or illegal. Decretal of the suit for specific performance consequently upheld.

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.

Suit for Specific performance of contract - Limitation -- Appellant entering into an agreement for sale of his land to respondent in October 1982 - Respondent upon paying certain amount as earnest money put in physical possession of the land -Sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered upon disposal of an appeal pending in High Court - As per the sale agreement respondent was to repay an amount of Rs. 42,000 to a bank being the loan taken by the appellant from the bank - Bank having filed a suit for recovery appellant issuing notice to respondent on 24-4-1984 directing him to pay the loan amount to the bank and get the sale deed executed within 15 days failing which the agreement shall stand cancelled - Respondent depositing an amount of only Rs. 10,000 in the bank on 25-5-1985 - On 26-9-1989 respondent filing a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale - Trial court decreeing the suit - Lower appellate court however holding the suit to be barred by limitation - On further appeal High Court holding that since time was not the essence of the contract the suit was not barred and accordingly remitting the matter to the lower appellate court - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that since the suit was not filed within three years from the date of expiry of the period of fifteen days specified in the notice dated 24-4-1984 it was barred by limitation.

Agreement for sale of property - Form of contract and execution of deeds - Performance of contract - Limitation for raising the plea of specific performance - Private limited company (company) owning certain property entering into an agreement with first respondent for sale - Agreement for sale dated 18.4.1971 -Company receiving advance amount for sale - In May 1971 company filing a suit against some persons claiming ownership over the property and obtaining a consent decree on 3.5.1978 - Thereafter first respondent writing letters on 12-11-1979, 11.1.1980, 5.1.1981 and 8.10.1984 asking the company to execute and register the sale deed - Company also assuring the first respondent that it would do the needful - However on 21.8.1985 company refusing to execute and register the deed on the plea that the same became barred by limitation - First respondent filing suit for specific performance in 1985 - During pendency of the suit company selling the property to appellant - Appellant contesting the suit and disputing its maintainability - Trial court decreeing the suit - Appeals there against dismissed by the lower appellate court as well as High Court. Dismissing further appeal held that since the period of limitation got extended by conduct of the parties the suit was not barred. Execution of the agreement by the company in favour of the first respondent had not been denied at any stage. Even in the absence of any resolution on the part of the company or official seal of the company in the agreement the contract could not be held to be invalid or illegal. Decretal of the suit for specific performance consequently upheld.

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.

Suit for Specific performance of contract - Limitation -- Appellant entering into an agreement for sale of his land to respondent in October 1982 - Respondent upon paying certain amount as earnest money put in physical possession of the land -Sale deed was agreed to be executed and registered upon disposal of an appeal pending in High Court - As per the sale agreement respondent was to repay an amount of Rs. 42,000 to a bank being the loan taken by the appellant from the bank - Bank having filed a suit for recovery appellant issuing notice to respondent on 24-4-1984 directing him to pay the loan amount to the bank and get the sale deed executed within 15 days failing which the agreement shall stand cancelled - Respondent depositing an amount of only Rs. 10,000 in the bank on 25-5-1985 - On 26-9-1989 respondent filing a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale - Trial court decreeing the suit - Lower appellate court however holding the suit to be barred by limitation - On further appeal High Court holding that since time was not the essence of the contract the suit was not barred and accordingly remitting the matter to the lower appellate court - Validity. Allowing the appeal held that since the suit was not filed within three years from the date of expiry of the period of fifteen days specified in the notice dated 24-4-1984 it was barred by limitation.

Agreement for sale of property - Form of contract and execution of deeds - Performance of contract - Limitation for raising the plea of specific performance - Private limited company (company) owning certain property entering into an agreement with first respondent for sale - Agreement for sale dated 18.4.1971 -Company receiving advance amount for sale - In May 1971 company filing a suit against some persons claiming ownership over the property and obtaining a consent decree on 3.5.1978 - Thereafter first respondent writing letters on 12-11-1979, 11.1.1980, 5.1.1981 and 8.10.1984 asking the company to execute and register the sale deed - Company also assuring the first respondent that it would do the needful - However on 21.8.1985 company refusing to execute and register the deed on the plea that the same became barred by limitation - First respondent filing suit for specific performance in 1985 - During pendency of the suit company selling the property to appellant - Appellant contesting the suit and disputing its maintainability - Trial court decreeing the suit - Appeals there against dismissed by the lower appellate court as well as High Court. Dismissing further appeal held that since the period of limitation got extended by conduct of the parties the suit was not barred. Execution of the agreement by the company in favour of the first respondent had not been denied at any stage. Even in the absence of any resolution on the part of the company or official seal of the company in the agreement the contract could not be held to be invalid or illegal. Decretal of the suit for specific performance consequently upheld.

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.

Agreement for sale of property - Form of contract and execution of deeds - Performance of contract - Limitation for raising the plea of specific performance - Private limited company (company) owning certain property entering into an agreement with first respondent for sale - Agreement for sale dated 18.4.1971 -Company receiving advance amount for sale - In May 1971 company filing a suit against some persons claiming ownership over the property and obtaining a consent decree on 3.5.1978 - Thereafter first respondent writing letters on 12-11-1979, 11.1.1980, 5.1.1981 and 8.10.1984 asking the company to execute and register the sale deed - Company also assuring the first respondent that it would do the needful - However on 21.8.1985 company refusing to execute and register the deed on the plea that the same became barred by limitation - First respondent filing suit for specific performance in 1985 - During pendency of the suit company selling the property to appellant - Appellant contesting the suit and disputing its maintainability - Trial court decreeing the suit - Appeals there against dismissed by the lower appellate court as well as High Court. Dismissing further appeal held that since the period of limitation got extended by conduct of the parties the suit was not barred. Execution of the agreement by the company in favour of the first respondent had not been denied at any stage. Even in the absence of any resolution on the part of the company or official seal of the company in the agreement the contract could not be held to be invalid or illegal. Decretal of the suit for specific performance consequently upheld.

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.

Agreement for sale of property - Form of contract and execution of deeds - Performance of contract - Limitation for raising the plea of specific performance - Private limited company (company) owning certain property entering into an agreement with first respondent for sale - Agreement for sale dated 18.4.1971 -Company receiving advance amount for sale - In May 1971 company filing a suit against some persons claiming ownership over the property and obtaining a consent decree on 3.5.1978 - Thereafter first respondent writing letters on 12-11-1979, 11.1.1980, 5.1.1981 and 8.10.1984 asking the company to execute and register the sale deed - Company also assuring the first respondent that it would do the needful - However on 21.8.1985 company refusing to execute and register the deed on the plea that the same became barred by limitation - First respondent filing suit for specific performance in 1985 - During pendency of the suit company selling the property to appellant - Appellant contesting the suit and disputing its maintainability - Trial court decreeing the suit - Appeals there against dismissed by the lower appellate court as well as High Court. Dismissing further appeal held that since the period of limitation got extended by conduct of the parties the suit was not barred. Execution of the agreement by the company in favour of the first respondent had not been denied at any stage. Even in the absence of any resolution on the part of the company or official seal of the company in the agreement the contract could not be held to be invalid or illegal. Decretal of the suit for specific performance consequently upheld.

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.

Suit for specific performance - Agreement of sale between defendant-respondents (1 and 2) and plaintiff-appellant on 10-3-1989 - Suit property let out to defendants 3 and 4 and eviction suit was filed and decreed on their refusal to vacate - Before the decree could be executed two suits by TM, alleging that there was an agreement to sell the suit property to him and seeking specific performance, were filed against the defendants 1 and 2 - Said agreement referring to these developments and providing for performance on termination of proceedings in court - Trial Court dismissing suits filed by TM on 10-6-1992 - TM making an application for continuation of injunction order till filing of appeal - Trial Court rejecting the said prayer but ordering continuation of status quo for two weeks (24-6-1992) - Plaintiff put in possession of godown on 11-6-1992 - Plaintiff receiving letter dated 18-6-1992 from defendant to wait for the result of the petition before registration - 'L' sister of defendant No. 4, filing suit on 20-6-1992 claiming partition of suit property and to restrain defendants from alienating the property - Trial Court directing to maintain status quo - Defendants taking possession of suit godown on 24-8-1995 by breaking open the locks - Plaintiff coming to know from defendants I and 2 during altercation that suit property had been sold to defendants 3 and 4 - Plaintiff enquiring in Sub-Registrar's office and learning that suit property had been sold during the period from 30-8-1995 to 31-8-1995 - Plaintiff issuing notice to defendants 1 and 2 on 4-9-1995 and filing a suit for specific performance on 15-9-1995 - Tenant impleaded as defendants 3 and 4 - Trial Court dismissing TM's suit as settled out of court and L's suit for non-payment of court fees - Trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiff holding that suit was not barred by limitation since plaintiff's notice of refusal of performance by defendants 1 and 2 arose only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 - High Court setting aside the decree since relevant date for performance was 10-3-1989 and suit was barred by limitation - Validity. Setting aside the High Court's judgment and affirming Trial Court's decree, held that though original agreement of 10-3-1989 had a fixed date for performance , the letter dated 18-6-1992 postponed the performance to a future date without fixing any date for performance. Second part of Article 54 is attracted and it was only on 31-8-1995/1-9-1995 that plaintiffs had notice of refusal of performance. Counted from this date, suit was filed within 15 days and was not barred by limitation.