SUJAN SINGH Vs. LALSAHAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT has appealed, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree allowing plaintiff's claim and cancelling the sale -deed dated 13.6.1984. Plaintiff/respondent had impugned that sale -deed being void as consideration, though stated as paid there under, had not been paid in fact.

(2.) DURING the course of hearing of the appeal, prayer is made by defendant/appellant for leave to amend the written statement by adding para 12 to include the averment that without prejudice to other defence claimed if the Court finds and concludes that consideration had not in fact been paid, then, direction be made to the plaintiff/respondent to accept the same because merely on the ground of non -payment of consideration, the sale -deed could not be cancelled. That prayer is seriously opposed for valid reason, but that is to be disposed of at the outset before dealing with the appeal on merits.

(3.) IN the instant case, two things are very clear. The new plea, though proposed to be set up as an alternative plea, if accepted, would tantamount to legalising an illegality. If the sale -deed is 'found void for want of consideration, the Court having no jurisdiction to enforce the contract would be required, if the amendment is allowed, to enforce a void contract by compelling the plaintiff to accept the consideration and validate the sale which was void ab initio. The new plea apparently is not maintainable in law. Secondly, by eft1ux of time, the value of the land purported to be sold under the impugned sale -deed has appreciated by metes and bounds; as such, if now the plaintiff is compelled to accept a deprecated value to put a premium on an illegal act, he is likely to suffer doubly and irreparably. For these reasons, in my view, the valuable right which has accrued to the plaintiff/respondent cannot be allowed to be defeated and, therefore, the application for amendment of written statement made in this appeal is rejected.