The vendor companypany remained at Lahore till 11 8 1947 and the companyntry was partitioned on 15 8 1947, forcing the parties to leave Lahore and to companye to India.
The provision of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act were made applicable to the area on 1 5 1949 and the defendant was found to have obtained possession of the lands in question on 6 12 1946.
Both the agreements of which specific performance was sought by the plaintiff, were thus held to be unenforceable from May 1, 1949 onwards.
On 8 12 1952, he presented his application under Section 10 of the Displaced Persons Debts Adjustment Act, Lxx of 1951 seeking payment of Rs.50,000 as debt due to him from the vendor company within the companytemplation of debt as defined in Section 2 6 of the said Act.
On the plea of limitation, the companyclusion of the learned Tribunal was expressed in the following words The petition was filed on 8 12 1962.
The claim for refund of the moneys paid by the plaintiff was, therefore, held to have been made within three years of the date upon which the agreement became incapable of specific performance and, therefore, within time under Article 97.
It was due to the vendees own default.
The Tribunal seemed to be of the view that there was numberhitch or hesitation on the part of the vendor company in giving effect to the agreement to sell and it was the petitioner who never made any effort to finalise the agreement.
An attempt has been made by Shri Hardy to bring the present case within the fold of Article 97 by reading the definition of companysideration companytained in Section 2 d of the Indian Contract Act and submitting the payment of earnest money must be held to be money paid upon an existing companysideration which afterwards failed because the property which was agreed to be sold later became incapable of sale.
While dealing with the question of limitation, the learned Single Judge proceeded to observe that the vendor company had agreed with the vendee for extending the time for the companypletion of the sale upto 20 5 1947, but thereafter both the parties remained quiet till the partition of the companyntry supervened which apparently means that both parties did number take any step to finalise the sale.
However, after so observing he referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in Unichaman v. Ahmed Kutti, 1898 ILR 21 Madras 242 and felt inclined to take the view that the liability in question was originally a companymon law liability, with the result that even though it was later declared to be a liability under a statutory provision, it would number be a case of statutory liability.
It was alleged in the suit that defendant had obtained possession of the lands by the end of August, 1949.
The only question falling for our determination relates to the plea of limitation and lies within a narrow companypass, namely, whether Article 97 of the Limitation Act applies to the case or whether it is governed by the residuary Article 120, numberother Article being applicable in terms.
The vendee also tried without success to have his claim of Rs.50,000/ verified against the property in question.
Of companyrse at one stage Shri hardy learned Counsel for the respondents also attempted to apply Article 62 of the Limitation Act but this attempt was number seriously persisted in.
The sale was to be companypleted by 5 4 1947.
On 1 4 1947, the vendee sought extension of time for the companypletion of the sale upto 20 4 1947, to which the vendor companypany agreed.
Turning number to the facts on 26 11 1946, Messrs. Gokal Nagar Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Hereafter called the vendor Company entered into an agreement to sell the building in question situated in Lahore number in West Pakistan for a companysideration of Rs.1,35,000/ to Shri Ram Lal Puri hereinafter called the vendee who paid Rs.20,000/ by way of earnest money at the time of the agreement.
The plaintiff sued for specific performance of the agreement on 19 2 1951 or in the alternative for refund of companysideration or for recovery of the suit amount by way of damages.
On this view, the vendees application was allowed to the extent of Rs.30,000/ and a decree passed for the said amount.
10th December, 1952.
The petitioners claim is, therefore, within time.
The matter was taken on appeal to the Punjab high Court by both sides, the vendee claiming the sum of Rs.30,000/ in addition and the vendor company seeking dismissal of the vendees application in its entirety.
By a subsequent agreement dated 26 4 1946, the time limit for execution of the sale deed was extended and the sale was agreed to be executed within four months of the date when the vendor would obtain possession of the lands from a third person against whom a decree for possession had been obtained.
By virtue of the provisions of Section 36 a of the Displaced Persons Debts Adjustment Act, 1951, the limitation was extended by one year from the companymencement of the said Act, viz.
On these facts, it was held that sale in companytravention of Sections 63 and 64 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act being void, an agreement to sell property, which it carried out would result in such a sale, did number give rise to any liability to sell property enforceable at law.
The property in dispute was later declared evacuee property by the Custodian on Pakistan, but the vendor company was number to blame for this delay.
26 D and 27 D of 1964 arise out of the same proceedings and being directed against one main judgment of a learned Single Judge, may be disposed of by one judgment.
D. Dua, J. These two letters Patent Appeals Letters Patent Appeal Nos.
On 17 4 1947, the vendee paid Rs.30,000 as an additional advance seeking extension of time by another month which was agreed to.
Nothing further happened to the matter and both sides, it seems, kept quiet.
