AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge
This is the plaintiff''s Regular Second Appeal filed u/s 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff Shri Bir Singh filed Civil Suit No. 194 of 1994, titled Bir Singh versus Revati Ram and others, for specific performance of contract, with respect to the suit land against defendants Revati Ram and others. The same was dismissed by the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Lauhal Spiti at Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in terms of judgment and decree dated 20th July, 1999. In the plaintiff''s Civil Appeal No. 95 of 1999, titled Bir Singh versus Revati Ram and others, learned District Judge, Kullu, has affirmed the judgment and decree, vide its judgment and decree dated 16th March, 2001. The present appeal stands admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
Whether both the learned lower Courts below had misled and mis-directed itself in appreciating the compromise Deed dated 28.8.1987. Ex. PA?
Whether both the learned lower Courts below are adopting the correct approach in holding that suit for specific performance of contract is not maintainable in spite of the averments in the plaint that the plaintiff has been ready and willing to perform his part of contract/compromise?
Having heard Mr. Rakesh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Raman Jamalta, Advocate, appearing vice Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that no case for interference is made out in the instant appeal. It cannot be said that the Courts below misread and misappreciated the evidence on record or committed any procedural irregularity or perversity while arriving at such conclusions.
All litigations must come to an end at some stage. More so of a cantankerous and a dishonest litigant, who, by initiating several proceedings over a considerable period of time, has ensured that opposing parties are repeatedly dragged to Court and subjected to harassment without any fault of theirs. In the instant case, I find that filing of the present appeal is one such endeavour by the appellant, who is the plaintiff.
Shri Bir Singh (plaintiff) filed Civil Suit No. 32 of 1987, titled as Bir Singh versus Revati Ram, in the Court of Sub Judge, Kullu. The suit was for injunction. During the pendency of the said suit, a compromise dated 28th August, 1987 (Ex. A-1), was arrived at between the parties. The same, as extracted by the lower Appellate Court, reads as under:
(1) That parties mutually have compromised the suit that plaintiff has left his claim of the suit in favour of the defendant because defendant has delivered possession of the land measuring 0-14 Biswas of Khasra No. 680 total measuring 1-10-0 Bigha Khata Khatoni No. 67/87 vide jamabandi 1983-84 situated in phati Ghiyagi Kothi Khadagad Tehsil Banjar, Distt. Kullu. Possession of 0-14 Biswa land towards the land of Khim Dev son of Sen Caste Brahman R/o Ghiyagi Kothi Khadagad Teh. Banjar has been given to the plaintiff. When limitation to alienate nautor land come to an end defendant would execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. In case of failure of the defendant to do so, then plaintiff would be entitled to obtain decree against defendant about property of that suit.
(2) The parties will bear Cost equally;
(3) Therefore, the compromise is arrived as proof.
Dated: 28.8.87/1.6.1909
Sd/- Jiwa Lal
Sd/- Bir Singh
Sd/- Revti Ram
Sd/- Shankar Dass
Statements of the relevant parties, in support of the compromise, were recorded. Statement of Shri Bir Singh is Ex. PB and statement of Shri Revati Ram is Ex. PC. Significantly, the said suit was dismissed by the Sub Judge, in terms of judgment and decree dated 28th August, 1987. The terms of the compromise were not adhered to. Shri Bir Singh unsuccessfully challenged the decree upto this court and his appeal being RSA No. 319 of 1993 was dismissed, in terms of judgment and decree (Ex. DW-3/G) dated 4th July, 1996.
Significantly, on 30th April, 1994, Shri Revati Ram transferred part of the suit land in favour of defendant No. 2 Shri Diwan Chand and defendant No. 3 Shri Bhagat Ram. Shri Bir Singh filed a fresh suit for injunction. He wanted a decree to the effect that the suit land be either not interfered with or transferred to third party by defendant Shri Revati Ram. The said suit was dismissed, in terms of judgment and decree dated 19th January, 1990 (Ex. DW-3/E).
Defendant Shri Revati Ram also sold part of the suit land vide sale deed (Ex. DX) in favour of defendant No. 4 Shri Sher Singh.
Notwithstanding the earlier decisions rendered by various Courts against him, Shri Bir Singh filed yet another suit, seeking specific performance of contract, i.e. compromise (Ex. A-1), dated 28th August, 1987, titled Bir Singh versus Revati Ram and others, which is now subject matter of the instant proceedings.
In the said suit, trial Court framed the following issues, on the basis of pleadings of the parties:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of specific performance of contract as prayed?
OPP
Whether the suit is not maintainable as alleged?
OPD
Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct to file the present suit?
OPD
Whether the suit is not within limitation, as alleged?
OPD
Whether the defendant NO.4 is bonafide purchaser for consideration?
OPD
Whether the plaintiff has not given two storeyed house in favour of the defendant No. 1 as per compromise dated 28.8.1987, if so, its effect?
OPD-1
Whether the suit is not properly valued for purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, as alleged?
OPD
Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties?
OPD
Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action as alleged?
OPD
Relief.
Defendant Shri Revati Ram, inter alia, took a plea that since plaintiff had reneged from the terms of the compromise, consequently there was no corresponding obligation to fulfill the terms of the compromise.
The trial Court dismissed the suit, in terms of its judgment and decree dated 20th July, 1999, which stand affirmed by the lower Appellate Court.
It is not in dispute that the land, pertaining to which the instant suit has been filed, was originally owned by the State and allotted to Shri Revati Ram as a grant made under the Nautor Rules. There is a statutory prohibition of alienation of such land for a period of 15 years from the date of such grant, which in the instant case was in force at the time of entering into a compromise. As such any agreement/compromise contrary to the terms of the grant is invalid and illegal and unenforceable in law.
That apart, the Courts below have concurrently held that alienation of land, by Shri Revati Ram, in favour of defendants No. 2, 3 and 4 is in accordance with law. The said defendants are not only bonafide purchasers of the land but have also built their structures thereupon.
As such the Courts below rightly dismissed the plaintiff''s suit, as no decree in his favour could have been passed.
Additionally, it is seen that the plaintiff himself had failed to comply with the terms of compromise. In fact, record reveals that in yet another set of proceedings, defendant Shri Revati Ram had to establish his independent title over the house which was the subject matter of the compromise and possession and title thereof came to Shri Revati Ram, not by virtue of implementation of terms of the compromise but adjudication of his legal rights by a Civil Court.
It is also seen that the terms of compromise, indicating that possession of the suit land was actually handed over by defendant Shri Revati Ram in favour of plaintiff Shri Bir Singh stands falsified from the evidence led by the parties and also for the reason that plaintiff himself had filed an affidavit in the judicial proceedings admitting the defendants to be in possession of the suit land.
It is also seen that there is no consideration fixed in the compromise. Suit for specific performance can be decreed only if the agreement is legally valid and enforceable. Here no consideration has been fixed. As such the compromise is legally unenforceable in law. Thus, it cannot be said that the Courts below misdirected themselves in appreciating the terms of the compromise or erred in dismissing the plaintiff''s suit.
Consequently, no ground for interference is made out. It cannot be said that the judgments and decrees are based on incomplete/incorrect appreciation of facts or material placed on record by the parties. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.
For the foregoing reasons, present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.