PANNALAL Vs. CHHEDILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the defendant against a decree of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, dated 22nd June 1964, affirming a decree of the Court of the First Additional Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur. S.A. No. 563 of 1964 decided on 8-12-1967 against the decision of M.P Bhatnagar, Second Addl. D.J., Jabalpur, dated 22/26-6-1964, in CA. No. 7-B of 1964 modifying the decree of P.B. Kerhalkar, First Addl. C.J., Class II, Jabalpur, dated 11-7-1963, in CS. No, 97-B of 1962,

(2.) THE facts no longer in dispute are: One Pannalal purchased a house from Smt. Padmavati and Deoraj, and executed an agreement for reconveyance. In due course, the vendors brought a suit for specific performance and obtained a decree for reconveyance against Pannalal. By a deed dated 4th February 1961, the vendors assigned their right, thereunder in favour of the present plaintiffs, Chhedilal and Phoolchand who started proceedings in execution. THE present defendant Pannalal raised various objections to the assignment, namely that the deed was bogus, sham, fictitious and inoperative and objected that the plaintiffs Chhedilal and Phoolchand had no right to execute the decree. THE executing Court upheld the assignment and its order was affirmed in appeal by the Second Additional District Judge, and later by this Court. In execution of the decree a deed of reconveyance was ultimately executed on 30th April 1962 by the Court in favour of the plaintiffs. During this period, the defendant admittedly recovered rent till 31st March 1962. On these facts, the plaintiffs assert that in view of decision by this Court in the suit for specific performance, the defendant was not entitled to recover any rent after 7th December 1954, and in so far as he wilfully avoided execution of a deed of reconveyance by raising frivolous objections, they are entitled to be reimbursed in respect of the amount of rents recovered by the defendant from the 4th February 1961 to 31st December 1962, by way of damages. THE defendant denied the claim on various grounds. THE first Court up held the entire claim for damages but on appeal, the Court below has restricted the claim to the period between 7th September 1961 and 31st March 1962. THE defendant has appealed. THE plaintiffs have filed a cross-objection.

(3.) ALTHOUGH, on the first point, learned counsel is perhaps, right in so far as he contends that the right to rents and profits accrues on a completion of transfer, nevertheless, for reasons which I shall presently state, the appellant cannot escape his liability for damages. The following passage in Mulla's Transfer of Property Act, 5th Edition, at p. 89, states the correct law: