KHAWANI Vs. MUNSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND Appeal No. 2232 of 1980 against judgment and decree of Sri G. C. Mogha, 1st Addl. District, Judge Meerut. Decided on November 8, 1992. Khawani (Since deceased) by LRs. (Appellant) versus Munshi and others (Respondents) (A) -Limitation Act, 1963, Sec. 4-An agreement of sale -Period for enforcing expiring on a day which was a holiday would stand extended upto the day next after such holiday (U. P. General Glauses Act, 1904, Sec. 10). In the Instant case three year's period stipulated in the agreement of re-conveyance for getting the sale deed executed was to expire on 13-10-1974, which admittedly being a Sunday was a closed holiday. Being sale of property worth more than Rs. 100/- it could only be executed by a sale deed duly registered under the provisions of the Registration Act. Therefore, the execution of the sale deed could be made only on a working day by getting it registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar concerned. According to section 10 of the General Clauses Act, where by any Central Act or Regulation an act is directed or allowed to be done or taken in any office on a certain day if the office is closed on that day or the last day of prescribed period, the act or proceedings shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the court or office is open. In this matter 13-10-1974 being a closed holiday, the plaintiffs were entitled to get the sale deed executed and registered upto 14-10-1974, (Para 8) (B) -Contract Act, 1872, Sec. 74-Contract-Performance of, was demanded within stipulated period-Hence forfeiture clause did not come into operation-AIR 1963 SC 1182, distinguished. (Para 10) Case Referred (Paragraphically) :-AIR 1963 SC 1182 (Para 10). B. D. Tripathi for Appellant. R. N. Singh, S. N. Singh, A, D. Prabhakar for Respondents. A. B. Srivastava, J,-This is defendant's second appeal against the judgment and decree of the 1st Additional District Judge Meerut, dismissing the first appeal, against the judgment of the Additional Civil Judge Ghaziabad decreeing the suit for specific performance of contract of sale

(2.) ON 14-10-1971 a sale deed of certain plots was executed by the plaintiff-respondents in favour of the defendant for a consideration of Rs. 14000/-. The same day an agreement to reconvey the said plots was executed by the original defendant-appellant Khawani in favour of the plaintiff-respondents, the term whereof were that in case the plaintiffs paid to the defendant within three years i.e. upto 13-10-1974 a sum of Rs. 14000/-as sale consideration the defendant shall execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs reconveying the property. Further stipulation being that after expiry of three years, the plaintiff shall forfeit the right to get reconveyance made. 13-10-1974 being Sunday the plaintiff served a registered notice and telegram on the defendant to remain present at the office of the Sub-Registrar Ghaziabad on 14-10-1974 to receive the consideration and execute the sale deed. The defendant though visited the office of the Sub-Registrar, instead of executing the sale deed, disappeared from the scene without any reason. The plaintiff returned back after waiting upto 5.00 p.m. since the plaintiffs have always been ready and willing to perform their part of the contract the defendant committed breach thereof, therefore, they are entitled to get the contract performed by means of a suit.

(3.) THE substantial question of law on which this appeal was admitted in this court is to the effect as to whether section 4 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the facts of the present case.