LACHHMAN DAS Vs. HAKIM RAM KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal on certificate, has arisen from the judgment dated November 6, 1970, of a learned single Judge of this Court in a Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) We can do no better than to state the facts which arc not disputed, as brought out in the judgment of the learned single Judge. The facts are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged contract of sale of shop No. 2562 Gali No- 6, Beadonpura, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. It was alleged that the plaintiffs are in possession of shop No. 2562 which is a part of the property known as No. 2562-73 (New No. XVI 2593-2606). This whole property was accomposite property and was auctioned by the 1954, Tea. nercent of the sale price was deposited Toy the plaintiffs and the defendants who were the bidders. However, the sale was not contrimed and the property was open to public and the maximum bid of Rs. 60,250.00 was given. The auction was then to be continued only amongst the sitting allottees and for this purpose auction was postponed to the next day. This is clear from the proceedings before the Competent Officer. Exhibit P-2 on the file. Before that the defendants-respondents entered into an agreement E.\. P-l in which it was provided that the plaintiffs who were in occupation of shop No. 2562 were not interested in the auction of the aforesaid full property by the Competent Officer, Delhi, and that they will not purchase the property if sold by the Competent Officer to the defendants together with Shri Sohan Singh. It was also agreed that after the sale as and when completed by the Competent Officer in favour of the defendants alongwith Shri Sohan Singh, they would transfer to the plaintiffs without payment of any consideration shop No. 2562 and that the defendants shall get the sale deed registered in the name of the plaintiffs. It was also agreed that the plaintiffs will withdraw from the auction of the property and as such will not bid. Later on auction was sanctioned in favour of the defendants and Shri Sohan Singh for Rs. 60,250.00 The sale certificate was issued in their favour on 5-8-1955. The defendants having refused to carry out their promise of transferring the shop in the name of the plaintiffs, the letter filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement Exhibit P-l. and prayed for a decree to execute the sale deed in their favour. The defendants controverted the allegations. Various pleas were raised and on the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :-- "(1) Is the suit within time ? 0. P. P. (2) Whether the plaint has been properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction ? 0. P. P. (3) Whether the defendants agreed to convey the shop in suit to the plaintiffs without consideration. If so, is the said agreement for consideration and is valid and cnforceable in law ? 0. P. P. (4) Whether the agreement of issue No. 3 was not entered into by proper parties and was it entered into by the defendants under coercion and threat, and if so, what is its effect? 0. P. D. (5) Whether the plantiffs are in lawful possession of the shop in suit? If not, how can they maintain the suit ? 0. P. D. (6) Is the suit had for non-joinder of the parties? (7) Relief."

(3.) The trial court held under issue No. 1 that the suit was within lime. On issue No. 2, the trial court found that the suit was valued properly for the purpose of court-fee though for the purpose of jurisdiction the court held that the suit for jurisdictional value would be Rs. 3,250.00 . On issues 3 and 4 it was found that the agreement was for consideration and it was legal and binding on the parties. Issue No. 5 was held in favour of the plaintiffs. On issue No. 6 it was held that as Shri Sohan Singh was not party to the agreement Ex. P-1. he cannot be made a party to the suit though the decree could be passed in respect of the parties actually before the court. Consequently, the trial court decreed the plaintiffs' suit and ordered the defendants to exeeute a conveyance deed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of shop No. 2562. He, however, made it clear that the decree would have no effect on Shri Sohan Singh's right in the suit property.