Case: Jagdish Chander (Dead) By L.Rs Vs. Brij Mohan and Others

The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass and may be briefly slateddefendant Jagdish Chander purchased t he lands in dispute for a consideration of Rs. 6000/- by a sale deed dated 12th July, 1958 including the Bhumidhari land from Ata Ilahi Khan who was the proprietor of the said lands. The sale deed in favour of the defendant Jagdish Chander contained a stipulation that the vendor would be entitled to repurchase the property for the consideration mentioned in the sale deed within five years from the date of the execution of the sale deed. On 18th December, 1958 Ata Ilahi Khan sold his right of repurchase of the land under the sale deed above mentioned to Bir Narain, Mangal Singh and Mukanda Singh. Thereafter, a few years later on 21st May, 1962 Ata Ilahi Khan again sold his right of repurchase in respect of the aforesaid property to Brij Mohan and Chandrapal Singh, plaintiffs No. 1 &2. It would thus be seen that while selling the property to the defendant Jagdish Chander Ata Ilahi Khan had clearly incorporated an agreement to resell the land within five years on payment of the consideration of the sale deed itself. Armed with the sale deed executed by Ata Ilahi Khan in favour of the plaintiffs, the respondents filed the present suit for specific performance of the contract of sale contained in the sale deed executed by Ata Ilahi Khan in favour of the defendant Jagdish Chander. The plaintiffs sought to enforce that part of the, contract which contained the right of the vendor to repurchase the property from Jagdish Chander with in five years.The suit was tried by the Second Additional Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar who dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs sale deed was not legally enforceable. The plaintiffs then filed ail appeal to the Court of the District Judge. Muzaffarnagar against the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge. The District Judge disagreed with the view taken by the trial Court and decreed the plaintiffs suit holding that the agreement relied upon by the plaintiffs was capable of being enforced The defendant Jagdish Chander unsuccessfully preferred an appeal to the High Court which was dismissed and the decree of the District Judge was upheld by the High Court. Thereafter, the plaintiffs came upto this Court and after being granted special leave the present appeal has been placed before us for hearing.

Court's reasoning:
In this connection, the District Judge observed asonce, it has been found that Bir Narain and others had no valid transfer made in their favour because of the want of a title to convey in their vandor, it is too much to say that they would be possessing the right to take back the land in the consequence of repurchase............ Further, the three vendees, Bir Narain, Mukanda Singh and Mangal Singh, were the attesting witnesses of the sale deed which specifically stated that whatever rights they possessed under the sale deed dated 20th December, 1959 had been relinquished or surrendered.......... then Bir Narain (P.W. 5) has declared on sworn testimony that he and the other vendees had acquired any right under the gale deed Ex.A-20 it is difficult to accept the respondents contention that the right to repurchase vested in Bir Narain and others . In that view the finding of the learned Additional Civil-Judge is infinding of fact has been affirmed by the High Court and it is not possible for us to go behind these findings of fact in this appeal by special leave. For these reasons, therefore, the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant must beon the finding of fact recorded by the District Judge and as affirmed by the High Court, it was established that the transferees, namely, the plaintiffs did not have lands exceeding 121/2 acres so as to , fall within the mischief of section 154 of the Act. In this view of the matter the second contention raised by counsel for the appellant also fails and it is not necessary for us to examine further the consequences of violation of the provisions of section 154 of the Act. Mr. Manchanda submitted that in view of the statutory prohibition contained in section 154 of the Act, the court would not exercise its discretion for enforcing the contract which is prohibited by law. In view, however, of the finding of fact referred to above that the total bhumidhari land possessed by the plaintiffs did not exceed 121/2 acres, or 30 acres, as the case may be, the question of application of section 154 of the Act does not arise, and, therefore, it is not necessary for us at all to go into the question as whether or not the court should have exercised its discretion in passing a decree for specific performance.