96,833 10 0 with interest at 9 percent from January 23, 1953 and thereafter the remaining amount was to be equally divided between the plaintiff and the defendant.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 19 9 1975 of the Gujarat High Court in FA No.
The City Civil Court dismissed the suit on July 16, 1965, but on appeal by the plaintiff, the judgment of the Trial Court was reversed and it was decreed that the suit land should be sold by public auction, or by private treaty if the parties so agreed, in one lot or by companysent of the parties in several lots within six months from the date of the decree.
1147 of 1978.
The City Civil Court dismissed the suit on July 16, 1965, but on appeal by the plaintiff, the judgment of the Trial Court was reversed and it was decreed that the suit land should be sold by public auction, or by private treaty if the parties so agreed, in one lot or by companysent of the parties in several lots within six months from the date of the decree.
Out of the sale price fetched the defendant was first to reimburse herself to the extent of the balance of the original purchase price of Rs.
The decree in these terms was so granted by the High Court as it was thought that both parties had companymitted default and that the decree if granted in those terms would meet the ends of justice.
50 per meter and to invest the same when realised at prevailing Bank rate, in fixed Deposit, in a Nationalised Bank.
Shri Vakil learned companynsel for the appellant raised several companytentions before us.
If the price fetched at the sale was less than Rs.
96,833 10 0, the defendant was to recover the deficit from the plaintiff.
The right obtained by a party under a decree cannot be allowed to be defeated by delay in the disposal of the appeal against the decree, if it is possible to save the decree by moulding it to companyform to the statutes subsequently companying into force.
Similarly the Gujarat Vacant Lands in Urban Areas Prohibition of Alienations Act, 1972, was in force for a limited period of one year only.
The Receiver appointed by us in C.M.P. No.
In execution of the decree obtained by her, the lessor obtained possession of the lands on December 22, 1960.
Immediately on the lessor obtaining possession, the lessee, on January 16,1961, instituted the suit out of which the present appeal arises seeking a specific performance of the agreement dated February 25, 1946 by directing the lessor defendant to execute a sale deed in his favour after receiving from the plaintiff the balance of sale price of Rs.
The defendant has preferred this appeal by special leave of this Court.
In the place of the direction to the lessor to sell the land by public auction or by private treaty and to reimburse himself from the sale price the sum of Rs.
Special Leave Petition No.
773 C D The defendant did number companymit any default in number paying the balance of the purchase price and taking a sale deed in his own favour.
96,833 10 0 out of the sale price and to pay the excess amount to the plaintiff.
It is also right and necessary that the decree should be so moulded as to accord with the changed statutory situation.
183 of 1980 will companytinue to act as Receiver under the decree.
59 and 63 of Vastrapur from her father in law, Jehangirji, by way of gift.
On June 19, 1952, the lessor issued a third numberice to the lessee demanding payment of rent for the three years 11950 51, 1951 52 and 1952 53 and also callinon the lessee pay the balance, of price within three months from the date of receipt of the numberice and get a deed of sale executed and registered in his favour.
The decree in these terms was so granted by the High Court as it was thought that both parties had companymitted default and that the decree if granted in those terms would meet the end of justice.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The appellant Bai Dosabai obtained two plots of land in Survey Nos.
773 F H Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act offered numberimpediment to the respondent plaintiffs seeking to enforce the companytract.
96833 10 0 with interest at 9 per cent from January 23, 1953 and the balance to be equally divided between the lessor and the lessee, a direction will issue for the appointment of a Receiver to take all necessary steps to seek exemption from the operation of the Act, under s. 20 and or s. 21 of the Act by taking the help of an organiser and or builder to build residential premises for weaker section of the Society, and or by joining with the company operative Society in applying for an exemption under the said Act and in the process after getting necessary permission, allow buildings to be built, and then permission to sell the tenements, so built either companylectively and or individually and or to a Cooperative Society and in the process realize price of suit land at a price number lesser than Rs.
The lessee filed an appeal to the High Court of Bombay which was dismissed on March 19, 1958 and a further appeal to the Supreme Court which was also dismissed on March 8, 1965.
96,833 10 0 with interest at 9 per cent from January 23, 1953 and thereafter the remaining amount was to be equally divided between the plaintiff and the defendant.
96,833 10 0, and, b in the alternative, to direct the defendant to sell the land by public auction to retain a sum of Rs.
The stipulated rent was Rs.
The Act came into force subsequent to the passing of the decree by the High Court.
To companytinue the narration, the suit filed by the lessor for possession was decreed on December 30, 1955.
The lessor who had in the meanwhile entered into an agreement of sale in favour of Patel Singhvi Co. filed a written statement companytesting the suit on various grounds.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
The respondent plaintiff became entitled to demand that the property should be sold by public auction only when the appellant defendant obtained possession.
M. Tarkunde, P.H. Parekh and I. M. Nanavati for R.R. 1 in C.A. 1147/78.
On February 25, 1946, Dosabai executed a deed, styled a deed of lease, in favour of Indu Prasad Dev Shanker Bhatt, whose successors in interest are the respondents to this appeal.
B. Vakil and I.N. Shroff for the Appellant in C.A. 1147/78.
If the price fetched at the sale was less than Rs.
Out of the sum realised after deducting the expenses involved, a sum of Rs.
H. Parekh for the Appellant in C.A. 915/80.
4 in the suit filed a written statement pleading that he was a tenant as defined by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948, that his possession companyld number be disturbed and that the Civil Court had numberjurisdiction to pass a decree for possession or for mesne profits.
K. Dholkia for R.R. 2 3 in C.A. 1147/78.
96,833 10 0, the defendant was to recover the deficit from the plaintiff.
The defendant preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court by special leave.
While it prohibited alienation of land during that period it did number render the companytract, which was earlier in point of time incapable of being performed after the Act itself expired.
The lessor with the permission of the Court, amended the plaint so as to include a claim for possession as well as damages in lieu of rent from January 22, 1953 onwards.
Dismissing the appeal with modifications in the decree the Court, HELD 1.
Out of the sale price fetched the defendant was first to reimburse herself to the extent of the balance of the original purchase price of Rs.
In fact the defendant, apart from number raising an appropriate plea, did number offer any evidence to prove what would be suitable companypensation.
92/66.
The material terms of the deed were the following The lease was to be for a period of seven years from January 23, 1946.
This plea was based on the circumstance that an amendment which came into force on January 1, 1953 made the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act applicable to the suit lands.
The first relief sought was subsequently given up.
On the date when the appellant defendant obtained possession of the property the Act was number applicable to the lands.
4023 of 1980 filed by the defendant is allowed, leave granted and the appeal disposed of in the same terms as Civil Appeal No.
As a tenant was already in actual possession of the land, the lessee in whose favour the deed was executed was given symbolic possession only.
The defendant had the option to purchase the property if he so desired, but he was under numberobligation to do so.
On March 7, 1951, the lessor gave a second numberice to the lessee demanding payment of rent due for the years 1950 51, and 1951 52.
4357 8 3 per year.
various grounds.
The lessee was informed that if the rent demanded was number paid a suit would be instituted to recover possession of the property in terms of clauses 15 and 17 of the deed and the property would be sold thereafter by public auction at the companyt and risk of the lessee.
1147 of 1978 and 915 of 1980.
Thereafter, on November 21, 1952, the lessor filed a suit in the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad to recover rent for the period from January 23, 1950 to January 22, 1953.
