BISHWANATH Vs. TILAKDHARI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale giving rise to this execution appeal by the judgment debtor a decree for possession after executibn of a sale deed was claimed by the plaintiffs on the basis of an agreement for sale relating to 2/3rd share in 16 plots of land situate in village Kharyanpur, Pargana Gopalpur, district Jaunpur, and 48 decimal of a grove in plot No. 92 situate in the same village. The suit was ultimately decreed by the High Court. It may be mentioned here that on the failure of the judgment debtor to execute the sale deed, the court itself executed a sale deed in favour of the decree-holders on 30th November 1968 covering the plots in question. The execution of the decree was resisted by the judgment debtor on a number of grounds which did not find favour with the courts below, hence this appeal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant raised two questions in support of the appeal: (1) that the agreement for sale was in respect of fixed rate tenancy plots. After the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the existing rights of the judgment debtor ceased and he acquired altogether new rights and no decree for specific performance of the agreement could be validly passed or executed against the newly acquired rights; and (2) that during the pendency of the execution proceedings as a result of the consolidation proceedings the judgment debtor was allotted a new chak consisting of entirely different plots and the decree for possession could not be executed against the plots allotted to him under the consolidation proceedings.

(3.) IT was next urged that as a result of consolidation proceedings in the village the plots which were the subject matter of the agreement have changed hands and the decree-holders are not entitled to claim possession over the plots which have now been included in the chak allotted to the judgment debtor. Reliance was placed on the decision of this court in Maliendra Nath v. Baikhunthi Devi 1976 (2) A.L.R. 21 (F.B.). In that case a Full Bench of this court held that a person who has got only a contract for sale or has got a decree for the specific performance of the contract, has got no interest in the land. He can only enforce the contract compelling the other side to execute the sale deed failing which the court might execute a Sale deed for the defendant, but the rights and liabilities under the contract do not attach to the land. The court further held that where the original plots included in the agreement have undergone a substantial change it will not be possible to enforce the agreement in respect of the substituted plots included in the chak. The view taken by this court in the aforesaid case is based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Satyabrats Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur and Co. and another A.I.R. 1954 S.O. 44 wherein it was laid down that "a contract for sale of land does not of itself create any interest in the property which is the subject-matter of the contract. The obligations of the parties to a contract for sale of land are, therefore, the case as in other ordinary contracts and consequently the doctrine of frustration is applicable to contracts for sale of land in India."