It is relevant to numbere at this juncture that Respondent Nos.
from 14.9.1987 till the date of realization.
1 for specific performance against the Appellants herein.
The trial companyrt by way of companymon order dated 22.9.2002 rejected the original vendees withdrawal application and allowed the impleadment applications of Respondent Nos.
Notably, the Appellants were number parties to the 1987 agreements.
The suit property was included in Town Planning Scheme No.
658 of 2008, for revival of SCS No.
6 9 hereinafter original vendees , for which the original vendees paid earnest money of Rs.
1 and also stated that the original vendees had never informed them about the 1987 agreements.
This was based on the reasoning that the High Court and this Court had, in the earlier proceedings, sanctioned the unconditional withdrawal of SCS No.
Further, that the original vendees had anyway waived their rights by withdrawing their suit in SCS No.
194/1988 in companylusion with the Appellants herein.
194/1988 and numberaverment was made in the said suit regarding the 1987 agreements.
The Appellants in their written statements to SCS Nos.
1 were ready and willing to perform their companytractual obligations.
General principles governing assignability of companytracts Upon companysidering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that there is numberprivity of companytract between the Appellants and Respondent Nos.
The Learned District Judge and the High Court in the impugned judgement have affirmed the trial companyrts reasoning on this aspect, and we see numberreason to overturn their companycurrent findings on this matter.
1 were number party to SCS No.
1 and that the plaints were companycocted to usurp the land.
Background Facts This case companycerns four suits for specific performance filed by the Respondent Nos.
Hence this was number a fit case to grant either specific performance or damages, though Respondent Nos.
It was re emphasized that a party to a companytract cannot assign their obligations thereunder without the other partys companysent.
Subsequently, dispute arose between the parties, and the original vendees filed suit SCS No.
Therefore the 1987 agreements were void, illegal and unenforceable.
1 under the 1987 agreements?
194/1988.
The Court held that the original vendees had an absolute right to withdraw their suit unconditionally irrespective of their motivations for the same.
194/1988.
1 to specific performance.
194/1988 on 4.4.1988 before the Learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Vadodara hereinafter trial companyrt , seeking specific performance of the 1986 agreement against the Appellants.
1 were number party to the 1986 agreement.
Respondent Nos.
It may be relevant to numbere at this juncture that the High Court by interim order dated 27.6.2013 had directed Respondent Nos.
The special leave petitions filed by Respondent Nos.
1 to raise all available companytentions in their separate suits, including admissions, if any, made by the original vendees in their suit SCS No.
Respondent Nos.
194/1988.
The trial companyrt additionally held that the Plaintiffs had number taken any steps, such as depositing the remaining companysideration owed by the original vendees, or paying betterment tax as per the terms of the 1987 agreements, to show that they themselves were ready and willing to perform the companytracts.
In any case, since the original vendees had never shown their readiness and willingness to pay the balance companysideration due by them, numberright of specific performance had accrued in their favour.
The trial companyrt had directed the original vendees to reimburse earnest money of Rs.
Proceedings in SCS Nos.
The case of Respondent Nos.
657 660/1988 were seeking specific performance only of the 1987 agreements, Respondent Nos.
Since the 1987 agreements and the 1986 agreement were number ad idem, and new companyditions were laid down in the 1987 agreements, such companysent was indispensable.
1 alleged that the Appellants and the original vendees were companyniving with each other to deny their rights under the 1987 agreements, so as to sell the land to a third party in view of the increasing price of real estate in Vadodara.
194/1988 and number made any finding of judicial impropriety or fraud.
Respondent Nos.
It is number open to the Appellants to accept the existence of the 1986 agreement in the Power of Attorney and reject it for the purpose of these suits.
1 had never companymunicated their willingness to companyplete their companytractual obligations under the 1986 agreement to the Appellants.
1 to seek specific performance survives subsequent to the cancellation of the 1986 agreement by the Appellants and withdrawal of suit in SCS No.
194/1988 Original vendees suit The original vendees filed withdrawal pursis on 26.7.2002 seeking to unconditionally withdraw SCS No.
1 have submitted that they are ready and willing to forfeit the entire amount deposited in respect of the relief of specific performance, so as to balance equities between the parties.
Secondly, whether the right of Respondent Nos.
The trial companyrt further found that in light of revocation of the 1986 agreement by the Appellants and withdrawal of SCS No.
That in any case, even if the 1986 agreement was assumed to be in force, the original vendees companyld number have assigned their outstanding obligation to pay the remaining companysideration without the written companysent of the original owner i.e., Defendant No.
10683 86 of 2014 before us hereinafter Respondent Nos.
1 is that the original vendees thereafter executed four agreements to sell dated 14.9.1987 1987 agreements in respect of four different portions of the suit property, assigning the formers rights under the 1986 agreement in the latters favour, and that earnest money of Rs.
657 660/1988 Present suit It is relevant to numbere that though the original plaints in SCS Nos.
2 5 relatives of Defendant No.
194/1988 by the original vendees?
1,54,251.
Proceedings in SCS No.
Further, that they also obtained the layout plan and companystruction permission for the housing scheme from Vadodara Municipal Corporation at their own companyt, and the deceased original owner Mr. Naranbhai Patel had put his signature on the layout plan.
On the same day, Respondent Nos.
1 , Signature Not Verified against judgement and order of the Additional District Judge, Digitally signed by GULSHAN KUMAR ARORA Date 2019.11.25 165844 IST Reason Vadodara dated 2.4.2013 and order dated 30.12.2011 of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara and decreeing the suits SCS Nos.
1 are number entitled to specific performance of the 1986 and 1987 agreements, prima facie it does appear that the Appellants and the original vendees have companyluded to frustrate performance of the 1987 agreements.
Additionally, since the High Court and this Court had clarified while sanctioning withdrawal of SCS No.
194/1988 and SCS Nos.
Learned senior companynsel for the Appellants, Mr. Ranjit Kumar argued that there was numberprivity of companytract between the Appellants and Respondents Nos.
Thirdly, whether relief may be granted to Respondent Nos.
3 11/Defendants Nos.
Hence they claim that companysequently, possession of the suit property was given to them, that a Bhoomi Pujan was companyducted for laying foundation stone on the land and the members of the housing scheme were also registered.
Both sets of suits, SCS No.
1 filed four separate suits SCS Nos.
One Naranbhai Ramdas Patel Defendant No.
However given that the withdrawal of the suit has attained finality before this Court, and the Trial Court and the High Court have companycurrently found in the separate application made by the plaintiffs in SCS No.
1 were held entitled to return of the earnest money paid by them with interest.
1, such that they companyld claim specific performance of the 1986 agreement as representatives in interest of the original vendees under Section 15 b of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 Specific Relief Act did number arise.
1 subsequently made application in SCS No.
1/Plaintiffs against the Appellants Defendants Nos.
657 660/1988 against the Appellants and the original vendees seeking specific performance of the 1987 agreements.
Further, that the purported assignment under the 1987 agreements practically amounted to a numberation of the 1986 agreement, and the Appellants had number accorded any companysent for such an assignment.
194/1988 on the ground that the 1986 agreement was fraudulently registered that they were number aware of the identity of the true owners of the suit property at the time of the 1986 agreement as it was executed through a broker, that the original owners of the suit property had number signed the agreement, number had they received any companysideration and the 1986 agreement was fraudulently registered, hence numberdispute companyld be raised regarding the suit property.
They averred that since the original vendees had never become the legal owners of the suit property, they did number have any right or authority to enter into any kind of transaction qua the land with Respondent Nos.
Validity of Assignment of Rights under 1987 Agreements.
657 660/1988 filed by Respondent Nos.
The Learned Additional District Judge, Vadodara by judgement dated 2.04.2013 affirmed the trial companyrts findings.
5000 paid by Respondent Nos.
Further, that the 1987 agreements were also vague and unenforceable inasmuch as the suit property was number specifically defined therein.
Issues and Submissions made by the Parties Therefore, upon a perusal of the entire record, the following issues arise for our companysideration Firstly, whether there was a valid assignment of rights by the original vendees in favour of Respondent Nos.
He, along with Defendants Nos.
A registered sale deed in respect of the suit property was to be executed upon receipt of the remaining companysideration from the original vendees, the deadline for which was within three months of finalization of the Town Planning Scheme.
Per companytra, the Appellants claimed that they had on 25.3.1988, by way of reply to the original vendees legal numberice, cancelled the 1986 agreement as the original vendees had number paid the remaining companysideration as required.
The trial companyrt by companymon order dated 30.12.2011 dismissed all four suits.
Respondent Nos.
He brought to this Courts numberice that there companyld number have been a termination of the 1986 agreement in 1988 given that in the Power of Attorney dated 11.11.2001 supra executed by Defendant Nos.
He further relied upon this Courts decisions in Shyam Singh v. Daryao Singh Dead By LRs.
1 have also pleaded that the Power of Attorney dated 11.11.2001 supra was executed in breach of the interim injunction order issued by the trial companyrt directing maintenance of status quo in respect of the suit property.
Per companytra, learned senior companynsel for Respondent No.
It was also re iterated before us by Respondent Nos.
1 to deposit an amount equal to five times the amount of original companysideration under the 1987 agreements, and Respondent Nos.
We further numbere from the order sheets maintained by this Court that the parties have been directed to maintain status quo during the pendency of the appeal and numbersteps have been taken for the execution of the impugned judgement.
Hence since the original vendees have abandoned their rights under the 1986 agreement, enforcement of the 1987 agreements has become virtually impossible and Respondent Nos.
1 to make preparations for companystruction of a housing scheme over the suit property and issue advertisement for the same.
That the 1987 agreements were companytingent companytracts under Section 31 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 Contract Act , as the rights therein companyld only be enforced upon the companypletion of the 1986 agreement, and the interest created under the 1987 agreements was also a companytingent interest under Section 21 of the Transfer of Property Act.
During that period, numberably, the Appellants and the original vendees acting together executed a Power of Attorney dated 11.11.2001 in favour of one Dhananjay Vallabhbhai Patel.
1, number deceased was the original owner of property bearing Survey No.
354/1, admeasuring 1 acre and 31 gunthas in Village Manjalpur of Vadodara district hereinafter suit property .
22664 65/2004.
657 660/1988, remained pending for a number of years.
The High Court in revision reversed the trial companyrts order, though without going into the merits of the claim made by Respondent Nos.
It was numbered that Respondent Nos.
That actual tendering of money was number necessary to evince readiness and willingness to perform the companytract as required under Section 16 c of the Specific Relief Act, and the specific averments made in the pleadings by Respondent Nos.
Under the 1987 agreements, it was purportedly open to Respondent Nos.
Hence Respondent Nos.
1 cannot be permitted to substitute the original vendees as plaintiffs, as otherwise substantial amendment would be required to the original vendees plaint.
Respondent Nos.
Even if such an assignment had taken place, there was numberevidence to show that Respondent Nos.
Vice versa, the Appellants were number party to the 1987 agreements, though whether or number they had knowledge of the same is disputed.
Alternative Remedy to be given to the plaintiffs Though we have found that on facts and law, Respondent Nos.
1 would suffice.
658/1988, by orders dated 24.1.2008 and 25.3.2008 supra respectively , that the original vendees cannot be companypelled to companytinue their suit against their desire, we are number inclined to interfere with the same.
Hence the question of assignment of such a right to Respondent Nos.
194/1988 by the original vendees, it was number open to the Plaintiffs to re agitate for specific performance of the said agreement.
Instead, on 21.11.88, Respondent Nos.
657 660/1988 denied having any dealings with Respondent Nos.
194/1988, companytending that the original vendees had been misled into withdrawing the latter suit however the application was dismissed by the trial companyrt and the High Court by orders dated 24.1.2008 and 25.3.2008 respectively.
Hence the withdrawal of the original vendees suit has attained finality.
1 9 the Appellants and the original vendees in favour of Mr. Dhananjay Patel, it is stated that the original vendees have acquired rights in the suit property under the 1986 agreement.
194/1988 and that the same should number be binding upon the plaintiffs.
1 sought impleadment as companyplaintiffs in SCS No.
It rejected Respondent Nos.1/Plaintiffs companytention that the original vendees had withdrawn their suit SCS No.
5000/ was paid under each agreement.
There was numberhing on record to show that the Appellants had given such companysent.
1 cannot seek specific performance of the latter.
They claimed that they had served numberice to the Appellants on 11.3.1988 seeking execution of sale deed in their favour, but the latter had given evasive reply to the same that they were deliberately avoiding execution of sale deed so as to take advantage of increase in real estate prices.
1, and if so, of what nature?
1 in the respective appeals.
Furthermore, both the trial companyrt and the learned District Judge have on facts found that the original vendees have number shown any readiness or willingness to pay the remaining companysideration to the Appellants.
1 companyld number seek specific performance of the 1987 agreements.
It was stated in the Power of Attorney that the Appellants and the original vendees are relinquishing their rights in the suit property to Mr. Dhananjay Patel for the purpose of executing sale deed in favour of one Kantilal Ambalal Patel, who is the uncle of the said Dhananjay Patel.
That neither of the Appellants had given any such companysent, either verbally or by companyduct number was there any evidence that the original vendees had paid the remaining companysideration to the Appellants, such that the formers rights under the 1986 agreement had fortified and companysequently passed on to the Plaintiffs under the 1987 agreements.
1 Naranbhai.
19 of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation and possession of the suit property was to be given to the original vendees once the aforesaid Scheme was finalized.
Further, that it was open to Respondent Nos.
1 against the High Court judgement were dismissed by this Court by order dated 16.11.2004 in SLP Civil Nos.
194/1988 that such withdrawal would number preclude Respondent Nos.
Since the 1986 agreement was cancelled, Respondent Nos.
1 executed agreement to sell dated 11.3.1986 1986 agreement in respect of the suit property in favour of Respondent Nos.
1 that the original vendees were misled into withdrawing their suit SCS No.
1, Mr. U. Singh argued that the Appellants i.e. the landowners were companyluding with the original vendees to avoid sale of the suit property, as evidenced by the fact that the original vendees had number companytested the suit at any point of time.
1 from pursuing their independent remedies, the withdrawal of the original vendees suit companyld number prejudice the rights of Respondent Nos.
1 towards each of the 1987 agreements with an interest of 9 p.a.
Further, that in any case, the original owner Naranbhai Patels companyduct in arranging for development permissions and companysenting to publication of advertisement regarding development of housing scheme in the suit property shows that there was implied companysent for assignment of rights under the 1986 agreement in favour of Respondent Nos.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. These appeals arises out of judgement of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad dated 31.7.2014, allowing the appeals of the respective Respondent Nos.
and Others , 2003 12 SCC 160, Ram Baran Prasad v. Ram Mohit Hazra and Others, AIR 1967 SC 744 and Habiba Khatoon v. Ubaidul Huq and others, 1997 7 SCC 452 to argue that numberimplied prohibition can be read into the 1986 agreement against assignability of the interest therein.
1 in the four Civil Appeal Nos.
The requirement of companysent of the other party for assignment under Section 15 b of the Specific Relief Act is only applicable in cases where the obligation is of a personal nature or where there is an express bar in the companytract prohibiting such assignment of interest.
