ivil Appeal No 1252 of 1976
Appeal by special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 13 8 1975 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No 179 75
K Gupta for the Appellant
ST Desai and RB Datar for the Respondent
SHINGHAL J
This appeal by special leave is directed against the summary dismissal of defendant Piarey Lal s second appeal on August 13 1975
As the leave has been limited to the question of interpretation of clauses a and b of section 30 of the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 hereinafter referred to as the Act for the pur pose of deciding whether the liability of the petitioner to specifically perform the contract of sale of the old hold ing was transferred to the new chak  allotted to him on consolidation it will be enough to state the facts which bear on it
916 Respondent Hori Lal raised the suit for specific per formance of an agreement dated March 6 1966 for the sale of six plote of land measuring nine high and six biswas in village Hathiawali Tehsil Gannaur
It was alleged in the plaint that Rs 3000 were paid by the plaintiff Hori Lal in advance and the balance of Rs 2000was to be paid at the time of the execution of the sale deed within one year of the agreement
It was also pleaded that as defendant Piarey Lal refused to execute the  sale deed the plaintiff was driven to the necessity of filing the suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale and in the alterna tive for the recovery of Rs 3000which had been paid as advance
Defendant Piarey Lal denied the execution of the agreement for sale and the receipt of Rs 3000  and pleaded that as new plots had been allotted as a result of the consolidation of his holding under the Act he could not perform the agreement for sale
The trial court framed issues inter alia on questions relating to the execution of the agreement for sale payment of Rs 3000 to the defendant and the inability of the defendant to perform the contract
That court held that the plaintiff had proved the agreement for sale and the payment of Rs 3000  
It also held that the agreement for sale could be enforced for plots allotted to the defendant in lieu of plot mentioned in the agreement in consolidation
 It therefore decreed the suit for specific performance by its judgment dated August 23 1973
The Second Additional District Judge Badaun upheld the decree and as the High Court has dismissed the second appeal as aforesaid defendant Piarey Lal has come to this Court for a redress of his grievance by special leave
As has been stated the limited question for considera tion in  this Court is whether the defendant was liable to specifically perform the contract for sale of his old hold ing even after its consolidation and the allotment of a chak  
It appears that there was controversy in the Allahabad High Court on the question whether an agreement for sale in the circumstances of a case like this was rendered void under section 56 of the Contract Act because of the order of consolidation allotting new plots for the earlier plots in respect of which the agreement for sale had been executed
A Single Judge of that Court took the view in Sugna and another vs Kali Ram and others1 that the agreement became void and impossible of performance and was not saved by section 30 of the Act
A different view was however taken by another Single Judge in Chetan Singh and others vs Hira Singh and others1
The matter was re ferred to a Division Bench in Shanti Prasad vs Akhtar and another2 One of the Judges in the Division Bench was the Judge who had given the decision in Chetan Singh s case
The Bench held that the duty of the seller to execute the conveyance of the property agreed to be sold was a liabil ity recognised by law and was enforceable as the liability relates to the land mentioned in the agreement and was transferred to the new chak  under section 30b of the Act
The decision in Shanti Prasad s case formed the basis of the decision of the first appellate 1 2 3 917 court in this case and that appears to be the reason why the High Court has dismissed the second appeal summarily
The controversy therefore turns on the proper interpretation of section 30 of the Act which deals with the consequences which ensue on exchange of possession as a result of the allotment of a chak  to the tenure holder
Clauses a and b of section 30 of the Act provide as follows 30Consequences which shall ensue on exchange of possession
With effect from the date on which a tenure holder enters or is deemed to have entered into possession of the chak allotted to him in accordance with the provi sions of this Act the following consequences shall ensue a the rights title interests and liabili ties i of the tensure holder entering or deemed to have entered into possession and ii of the former tenure holder of the plots comprising the chak in their respective original holdings shall cease and b the tenure holder entering into pos session or deemed to have entered into pos session shall have in his chak the same rights title interests and liabilities as he had in the original holdings together with such other benefits of irrigation from a private source till such source exists as the former tenure holder of the plots compris ing the chak had in regard to them
 It would thus appear that while clause a deals with the rights title interests and liabilities of the tenure holder entering into possession of the chak  as well as of the former tenure holder of the plots comprising the chak  in their respective original holdings and provides that those rights title interests and liabilities shall cease clause b provides that the tenure holder entering into possession of the chak  shall have in that chak  the same rights title interests and liabilities as he had in the original holdings
 The expression chak  has been defined in section 31 A of the Act to mean the parcel of land allotted to a tenure holder on consolidation
The two clauses therefore are quite simple and clear and  do not raise any real problems of interpretation but the question is whether there is justification for the argument in the facts and circumstances of this case that the expression liabilities would cover the liability of the seller ie the defendant under the aforesaid agreement for the sale of his original holding 
As is obvious clause a of section 30 does not bear on the question in controversy because it only provides for the cessation of the rights title interests and liabilities both of the tenure holder to whom the chak  has been allot ted and of the former tenure holder 918 of the plots comprising the chak  in their respective original holdings
There is no controversy that this was so in the present case
It is also no body s case that the rights title and interests of the tenure holder entering into possession of his chak  have any bearing on the con troversy relating to the specified performance of the agree ment for sale for all that has been urged before us is that the defendant as the tenure holder of the new holding or chak  had the same liabilities in that chak  as he had in the original holding
What therefore remains for consider ation is whether on the defendant s entering into posses sion of his new land or chak  there was the same liability in the new land as in the original holding
It there fore to be examined whether by virtue of the agreement for sale any liability accrued in the original holding  A cross reference to section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act shows that a contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties
It has however been specifically provided in  the section that such a contract does not of itself create any interest in or charge on such property
 It would therefore follow that the agreement for Sale in the present case did not give rise to any interest in the original holding of the defendant as the tenure holder
That being so there could be no occasion for the transfer of any such liability in the new land or chak  of the defendant so aS to attract clause b of section 30 of the Act
In fact what the defendant was bound to do under section 551d of the Transfer  of Property Act was to execute a proper conveyance of the property which was the subject matter of the contract for sale and not of any other property
So when he lost that property as a result of the scheme of consolidation and his rights title interests ceased in that property by virtue of clause a of section 30 of the Act the agreement for sale became void within the meaning of section 56 of the Contract Act and it is futile to urge that they were saved by clause a or clause b of section 30 of the Act
We have gone through the decision in Shanti Prasad s case supra but we find that while the High Court took note of the fact that the right s title interests and liabilities of the tenure holder in his original holdings ceased and he acquired the same rights title interests and liabilities in the chak  allotted to him it lost sight of the significance of the word in and the afore said provisions of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and disposed of the controversy before it by raising the other question whether the tenureholder was subject to any liability in respect of his old holding
That was why it fell into the error of holding that a liability was created in the original holding of the defendant and was transferred his chak  on his entering into its possession
As has been shown that was an erroneous view which has to be rectified
It may be mentioned that counsel for the respondent tried to argue that the defendant was bound to execute a proper conveyance of his original holding which was the subject matter of the agreement of sale because that holding had been substituted by the chak 
919 He also tried to argue that the chak  allotted to the defendant by way of consolidation of his holding was the same as his original holding so that there was no occasion to invoke section 30 of the Act
Counsel could not however support his argument by reference to the law or the facts of the case
Moreover he was unable to show how he could raise any such argument when the special leave had been limited to the interpretation of clauses a and b of section 30 of the Act
It would thus appear that the plaintiff respondent s suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale was liable to dismissal and the High Court as well as the courts below erred in taking a contrary view
Counsel for the appellant has however frankly stated at the bar that the appellant would be willing to refund the sum of Rs 3000 along with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of payment
The appeal is allowed with costs the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the suit of plaintiff respondent Hori Lal is dismissed in so far as it relates to specific performance of the agreement for sale
It is however ordered that the defendant shall repay Rs 3000 to the plaintiff along with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of payment within three months from today
MR Appeal allowed


Summary:
The appellant Piarey Lal had agreed to sell his original holding to Hori Lal but later refused to do so on the ground that his property which was the subject matter of the con tract had been consolidated under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act 1953 and it was impossible to perform the agreement
Hori Lal filed a suit for specific performance contending that the agreement for sale had created a liabil ity for Piarey Lal for the purpose of section 30b of the Act and the same was transferred to the new plot or chak allotted to him as a result of the consolidation
The suit was decreed by the Trial Court and Piarey Lal s appeals before the District Court and the High Court were dismissed
Allowing the appeal by Special Leave the Court HELD By virtue of section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act the agreement for sale did not give rise to any inter est in the original holding of the defendant as the ten ure holder
There could thus be no occasion for the transfer of any such  liability in his new land or chak so as to attract clause b Of section 30 of the Act
When he lost that property as a result of the scheme of consolida tion the agreement for sale became void
918 C E Sagna  Anr
vs Kali Ram  Ors  approved
Shanti Prasad vs Akhtar  Anr
and Chettan Singh  Ors
vs Hira Singh  Ors overruled