KUER NEHAL SINGH Vs. LALA SEWA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is by no means a simple matter, having regard to what has previously happened in the history of the case. The circumstances out of which the suit arises appear in every judgment on the record (I think this is the fifth judgment in the case), and need not be reiterated. When the case was last before my brother Mr. Justice Sunder Lal, as he then was, and myself, certain issues were sent down to the lower Appellate Court. The result of the findings is that the District Judge has held that the plaintiff had no contract with defendant No. 2 and that defendant No. 1 only received notice of a contract, if there was one, during the registration proceedings.

(2.) Either of these findings, if they are sound, would be fatal to the plaintiff s case.

(3.) The second is clearly untenable. The point is covered by authority, and we have no alternative but to hold that the notice was sufficient to render defendant No. 1 liable under Section 27, Sub-section (b) of the Specific Relief Act, if there was a contract. The first point raises considerable difficulty. At the first hearing in the first Court defendant No. 2, who is alleged to have made the contract, did not appear to dispute it. It would be idle to ignore that significant fact. The first Court held that there had been an executory contract for Rs. 2,900 and that Rs. 100 had been accepted by defendant No. 2 as part payment there under. Defendant No. 1, who succeeded on the question of notice, did not challenge this finding when he was respondent in appeal, but as he again succeeded in the lower Appellate Court on the question of notice, this Court in referring the issues gave him the opportunity to do so at the second hearing.