Gian Singh vs Tehl Dass

A.S. Nehra, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11.4.1989 passed by the Additional District Judge,

Jalandhar, by which the appeal filed by the plaintiffappellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 2.11.1988 passed by the trial court

(dismissing the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiffappellant) was upheld.

The plaintiffappellant instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that be is entitled to the enhanced compensation that may be awarded by the

District JudgecumTribunal, Jalandhar, with regard to the suit land, inter alia, on the allegations that vide agreement dated 29.12.1972 the plaintiff

had agreed to purchase the suit land from the defendantrespondent for Rs. 7000/; that the entire sale consideration was paid and the plaintiff was

put in possession of the land by the defendant that the land had been purchased by the defendant from the Central Government; that the saledeed,

was to be executed on demand; that, however, prior to execution and registration of the saledeed, the suit land was acquired; that the

compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was received by the plaintiff, that a reference has been made to the District Judge and

the enhanced compensation is to follow; that, as the defendant had no right, title or interest in the land after the full consideration amount had been

paid to him, the plaintiff is entitled to the enhanced compensation which is to be awarded by the District Judge; and that, since the defendant has

refused to admit the claim of the plaintiff, therefore, the suit has been filed by the plaintiffappellant, stating that he is entitled to get the enhanced

compensation.

On notice, the defendantrespondent admitted the claim of the plaintiff appellant and prayed that the suit be decreed.

It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that, since the parties are not at issue, therefore, the court ought to

have decreed the suit; that Exhibit A1 shows that a reference was made to the District Judge on the application of the defendantrespondent; and

that sale deed could not be executed because the land was acquired.

Having considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, as well as keeping in view the proposition of law involved, I find that

where parties enter into a compromise and institute a consent suit or a compromise is arrived at between the litigation parties during the pendency

of the suit according to the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, the compromise is to be lawful and the Court is to be satisfied

on this aspect. According to Explanation appended to Order 23 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, the lawfulness of an agreement is to be seen

under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act.

In the present case, after the land was acquired, the contract of sale stood frustrated according to section 56 of the Indian Contract Act. Any

person having an interest in the property could move an application under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. If the plaintiffappellant had an

interest in the suit property he ought to have moved a reference application. Nothing has been brought on the record to show that the

compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was received by the plaintiffappellant. In MA. Khan v. P.J. Surana, AIR 1972 Bombay

217 (DB) it was held that, in case of an agreement of sale, the proposed purchaser is not entitled to compulsory acquisition charges. The only

remedy of the appellant was to move an application under section 18 read with section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 31 is a special

provision. It is well settled that specific excludes the generic. Under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Civil Court is competent to try all

suits of civil nature excepting the one, the cognizance of which is expressly or impliedly barred. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is

dismissed with no order as to costs.