GURNAM KAUR Vs. TUISI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to the filing of the presentappeal are that the present appeal has been filed by the defendants againstthe order dated 30-9-1978 passed by Shri M.S. Rohilla. Sub Judge 1st Class,Delhi. Sunder Singh, ancestor of the present defendants (appellants herein)was allotted two houses bearing Nos. M/67-A and M/67B, Malviya Nagar,New Delhi by the Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India. Thesale consideration whereof was required to be paid in instalments. Therespondents filed the suit against the appellants in the Court valuing the suitat Rs. 8,580.00 thereby fixing the value of the property in question. Theappellants-defendants in their written statement took the objection to thevaluation, the same being wrong as each quarter was more than Rs. 15,000.00at the relevant time. It is important to mention that for the first time suitwas filed by the respondents in the year 1965 whereas the agreement inquestion was entered into on 22/06/1959. Prior to the filing of the suitin 1971 the respondents filed Suit No. 328 of 1965 in the Court of Shri S.C.Ahuja, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi.

(2.) On 22/06/1959 the said Sunder Singh enteted into an agreement with the respondent that in case the respondent pays the arrears of rentin respect of both the houses and the sum due in respect of house bearingNo. M/67-B, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi amounting to Rs. 5000.00, hewould transfer the said house No. M/67-B to the respondents inpart performance thereof. In consequence thereof said SunderSingh transferred the said house to the respondents with vacant possession. It was further agreed between the said Sunder Singh andthe respondent that on respondent's advancing a sum of Rs. 3,000.00 to thesaid Sunder Singh for payment to the Government which sum was due inrespect of house No. M/67-A the said sum would be returned by the saidSunder Singh in five yearly instalments of Rs. 600.00 each commencing from 1/01/1960 in default whereof said Sunder Singh would convey theHouse No. M/67-A also to the respondent subject to the respondent's payingthe sums due to the Government in respect of that house. The relevantclause of the said agreement reads as follows :-

(3.) In terms of the aforesaid agreement respondent was required toadvance money to Government Authority. The respondent made all thepayments to the Government through her husband pertaining to HouseNo. 67B, the possession of this portion was also given to the respondent asstated earlier. Sunder Singh died on or about 1964 and was survived by thepresent appellants as his legal heirs. Sunder Singh did not pay any instal-ments towards the loan advanced to him by the respondent on which accountthe respondent claimed that she was entitled to the transfer of House No.67A also as per the terms of agreement.