Chanda (Dead) Through Lrs vs Rattni & Anr

Background facts as projected by the plaintiff in a nutshell are as follows:

The plaintiff did not deposit the balance sale price within two months from the date of the decree, and the defendants did not execute the sale deed. Plaintiff then moved an application on 10.10.1992 for the execution of the decree pleading therein that since the judgment debtors-respondents had failed to execute the sale deed the same was to be executed through court and that he (plaintiff) be allowed to deposit the balance sale price in court. During the pendency of this application, one Sarup Singh through his general attorney moved an application for being impleaded as a party in the execution proceedings on the plea that he was the owner in possession of the suit land on the basis of a decree dated 26.7.1991 which the defendants are alleged to have suffered in his favour. The executing court as per its order dated 14.8.1995 allowed the applicant to be impleaded in the execution proceedings. Sarup Singh then filed objections to the execution application which were dismissed as per order dated 10.9.1998 and it was held that he was not a bona fide purchaser of the suit land. On 8.9.1998, the judgment debtors-respondents moved an application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short the 'Act') with a prayer that the agreement to sell dated 25.3.1989 be rescinded since the plaintiff-appellant had failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the time allowed by the court. This application was contested by the appellant-plaintiff and on a consideration of the contentions advanced by the counsel for the parties the trial court as per its order dated 15.9.1998 allowed the application and rescinded the original contract dated 25.3.1989 holding that the plaintiff had failed to deposit the balance sale consideration within the time allowed by the Court. The execution application filed by the plaintiff-appellant was consequently dismissed. The said order was assailed in the revision petition filed before the High Court.

Before the High Court the stand of the appellant was that the order of the Trial Court was not sustainable as the court while decreeing the suit for specific performance had directed the defendants-respondents to execute the sale deed within two months from the date of decree and since they failed to do so the plaintiff was entitled to have the sale deed executed through the court. According to him, there was no specific direction given to the plaintiff to deposit the balance share consideration within stipulated period and, therefore, the Trial Court was not justified in rescinding the contract on account of non-deposit of the balance sale price by the plaintiff. It was also contended that several imposters were set up which disentitled the applicant from any relief. The High Court found that para 6 of the judgment of the Trial Court as quoted above, clearly indicated that the defendants had been directed to execute the sale deed within two months from the date of the decree on payment of the balance sale price of Rs.1,30,000/-. The same was, therefore, a condition precedent for execution of the sale deed. It was implicit in the direction that the plaintiff was required to deposit the balance consideration within a period in the first instance and it was only then defendants were required to execute the sale deed. Since the plaintiff did not deposit the balance amount, the order of court below was perfectly in order. Revision petition was accordingly dismissed.

Above being the position, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed without any order as to costs.