After about 3 years, on or about June 8, 1961, the appellant gave numberice to respondent number 1 repudiating the arrangement dated June 11, 1958 as void and claimed that the documents were number binding upon him.
The Subordinate Judge, First Class, Delhi rejected the preliminary objection by his order dated February 26, 1962.
The appellant alleged that the deeds executed on June, 11, 1958 were unlawful and void and inoperative against him as they were executed as a result of undue influence and companyrcion exercised upon him.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 14, 1964 of the Punjab High Court, Circuit Bench at Delhi in Civil Revision No.
A deed of cancellation of agreement of sale of land between Lila Ram and the said new partnership firm of L.M.G. Colonisers and respondent number 1.
By his order dated February 14, 1964, Dulat, J. allowed the Revision Application holding that the appellant having sued for a declaration that the agreement of June 11, 1958 was void, cannot in the alternative be permitted to sue for specific performance of the agreement and therefore the suit must fail so far as the relief for specific performance was companycerned.
Lila Ram on the terms and companyditions set out therein.
2 and I entered into on 2nd January 1957 Ex.
On June 11, 1958 the parties cancelled the new partnership and agreement dated January 2, 1957 and entered into a fresh arrangement and executed the following four documents A deed of dissolution of the new partnership between L.M.G. Colonisers and Traders companysisting of the appellant and respondent number.
In the alternative the appellant prayed for a decree for specific performance of the agreement dated June 11, 1958 to sell the aforesaid 22 plots of land and for damages in addition thereto.
By virtue of these documents the new partnership dated January 2, 1957 between L.M.G. Colonisers respondent number 1 came to an end as also the agreement dated January 2, 1957 by which Lila Ram had agreed to sell his lands to the said new partnership firm and there was a fresh agreement by Lila Ram to sell the same lands to D.L.F. Housing and Construction Private Ltd., respondent number 1 at a certain price and out of the land thus to be bought, respondent number I agreed to sell 22 plots of land to the appellant.
228 D of 1962.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On the same day i.e., January 2, 1957 the newly formed partnership between the respondent number 1 and L.M.G. Colonisers Traders entered into an agreement for the purchase of the same land with Pt.
P. I .
An agreement to sell 22 plots out of the land agreed to be purchased from Lila Ram under the agreement stated in above by respondent number 1 in favour of the appellant.
A preliminary objection was raised by the companytesting respondent number 1, D.L.F. Housing and Construction Ltd. to the effect that the appellant having claimed that the agreement dated June 11, 1958 was void and inoperative, cannot in the same suit pray for specific performance of the same agreement.
37 of 1966.
Prem Raj, the appellant entered into an agreement with Shri Moti Ram Bhalla, respondent number 2 for the purchase of lands from Shri Lila Ram, father of the appellant at the price of Rs.
C. Misra and M. V. Goswami, for the appellant.
C. Chagla, Daya Krishan, S. C. Javali and Ravinder Narain, for respondent No.
1025/ perbigha on the terms and companyditions mentioned therein.
Subsequently, on January 2, 1957 the said firm L.M.G. Colonisers Traders entered into a deed of partnership with D.L.F. Housing Construction P Ltd., respondent number 1 herein to carry on the business of purchasing and developing the lands into a residential 1 companyony and to sell the same in plots either by auction or by tenders or in any other manner as the companypany, respondent number 1 may find expedient after getting the scheme for development approved by the companypetent authority.
On October 26, 1956 Pt.
In support of this appeal it was argued, in the first place, that under 0.7 r. 7, Civil Procedure Code the appellant was entitled to claim a relief in the alternative on the facts stated in the plaint and it was open to him to pray to the Court that a decree for specific performance should be granted if the Court did number accept his case that the impugned agreement dated June 11, 1958 was illegal and void.
6 51 This appeal is brought by special leave from the order of the Punjab High Court dated February 14, 1964 in Civil Revision Application number 228 D of 1962.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. The sole question involved in this appeal is whether a plaintiff suing for a declaration that a certain companytract against him is void and inoperative having been obtained by undue influence, can in the same suit in the alternative ask for the relief of specific performance of the same companytract.
On December 18, 1956, the appellant and respondent number 2 entered into a partnership to carry on the business of buying and selling lands and developing, the same under the name and style of M.G. Colonisers Traders.
A new Agreement of sale of these same lands by Lila Ram in favour of respondent number 1.
Respondent number 1 filed a Civil Revision Application number 228 D of 1962 in the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at Delhi.
