HARI RAM Vs. NAGAR PALIKA PRASHASHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal under Section 100, CPC. The following substantial questions of law were formulated by this Court by order dated 5-12-1990 at the time of admission of this appeal:-

(2.) THE defendant-Municipal Council, Tikamgarh is owner of House No. 32, Ward No. 12, Risala Line, Tikamgarh. The plaintiffs case is that the defendant agreed to sell the land having an area 1825 Sq. ft. and the house standing thereon to him by a sale agreement. The plaintiff deposited an amount of Rs. 1,365/- on 8-3-1977 with the defendant as per receipt Ex. P-1. There is a resolution dated 23-11-1971 (Ex. P-4) of the Municipal Council, Tikamgarh by which it was resolved that the Sindhis living in Risala Line be given land at the rate of 0. 75 paisa per Sq. ft. There is no formal agreement in writing between the plaintiff and the defendant-Municipal Council for sale of the land or the house to the plaintiff. The resolution (Ex. P-4) is so cryptic that a sate agreement in favour of the plaintiff cannot be spelled out from this resolution. The deposit of the amount of Rs. 1,365/- on 8-3-1977 as per receipt Ex. P-1 by the plaintiff is of no help to him as there is no written agreement between the parties. For these reasons the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have held that the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of contract cannot be decreed.

(3.) ARGUMENTS of the learned counsel for both the sides were heard on the questions referred to above. The decision of this Court on these questions is as under: Question Nos. (1) and (2): The First Appellate Court after discussing the factual and legal position has arrived at a conclusion that there is no sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff. It is admitted that there is no agreement in writing for sale of the house or the land to the plaintiff. Resolution (Ex. P-4) does not confer any right upon the plaintiff. There is nothing to indicate that the house was to be sold to the plaintiff. It is not disclosed by the plaintiff as to who negotiated on behalf of the Municipal Council to sell the house to the plaintiff. The Municipal Council is a corporate body as per Section 18 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961. Further Section 110 of the Act provides that the Chief Municipal Officer is the authorised officer to execute a contract on behalf of the Municipal Council. In the absence of a formal agreement the Municipal Council is not bound to execute a sale-deed in respect of the house in dispute in favour of the plaintiff. There was no enforceable contract between the parties. It has been held by this Court in Shajuddin Vs. Nagar Palika Parishad (1987 MPLJ 470) that according to the provisions of Section 110 of M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 only the Municipal Council is competent to enter into a contract and that too in writing. Nagar Palika is a public body and none except the Council is competent to enter into a contract. The opinion expressed by the Administrator of the Municipal Council as per Ex. P-3 is also not binding on the Municipal Council if there was no agreement between the parties. The Courts below have rightly refused to grant the relief of specific performance of contract. Question No. (3): This was a suit for enforcement of a contract and, therefore, notice under Section 319 of the M. P. Municipalities Act, 1961 was not required. This was not a suit for enforcement of any liability imposed upon the Municipal Council by this Act. It has been held by this Court in Buddiprakash Vs. Nagar Palika, Joura (1991 MPLJ 933) that for enforcement of a contractual obligation no notice under Section 319 of the M. P. Municipalities Act is required.