Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 158 views

    Nathulal vs. Phoolchand

    Uploaded by

    Mohit Bhagat
    The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal in the case of Nathulal vs. Phoolchand. The Court held that the respondent was eligible for the defense of part performance. The respondent took possession of the property and made improvements, satisfying the conditions for part performance. Additionally, the respondent demonstrated willingness and ability to pay the outstanding amount as required by the contract. However, the appellant failed to fulfill his own obligations under the contract by not obtaining the necessary government permission for the sale and updating revenue records. As such, the respondent could not be compelled to perform until these preconditions were met by the appellant. The Court upheld the High Court's ruling allowing the respondent to retain possession upon payment of mesne profits.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Nathulal vs. Phoolchand

    Uploaded by

    Mohit Bhagat
    158 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal in the case of Nathulal vs. Phoolchand. The Court held that the respondent was eligible for the defense of part performance. The respondent took possession of the property and made improvements, satisfying the conditions for part performance. Additionally, the respondent demonstrated willingness and ability to pay the outstanding amount as required by the contract. However, the appellant failed to fulfill his own obligations under the contract by not obtaining the necessary government permission for the sale and updating revenue records. As such, the respondent could not be compelled to perform until these preconditions were met by the appellant. The Court upheld the High Court's ruling allowing the respondent to retain possession upon payment of mesne profits.

    Original Description:

    judgment covered under law of property. syllabus of GNDU. 1st year B.A.L.L.B Course

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal in the case of Nathulal vs. Phoolchand. The Court held that the respondent was eligible for the defense of part performance. The respondent took possession of the property and made improvements, satisfying the conditions for part performance. Additionally, the respondent demonstrated willingness and ability to pay the outstanding amount as required by the contract. However, the appellant failed to fulfill his own obligations under the contract by not obtaining the necessary government permission for the sale and updating revenue records. As such, the respondent could not be compelled to perform until these preconditions were met by the appellant. The Court upheld the High Court's ruling allowing the respondent to retain possession upon payment of mesne profits.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    158 views2 pages

    Nathulal vs. Phoolchand

    Uploaded by

    Mohit Bhagat
    The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal in the case of Nathulal vs. Phoolchand. The Court held that the respondent was eligible for the defense of part performance. The respondent took possession of the property and made improvements, satisfying the conditions for part performance. Additionally, the respondent demonstrated willingness and ability to pay the outstanding amount as required by the contract. However, the appellant failed to fulfill his own obligations under the contract by not obtaining the necessary government permission for the sale and updating revenue records. As such, the respondent could not be compelled to perform until these preconditions were met by the appellant. The Court upheld the High Court's ruling allowing the respondent to retain possession upon payment of mesne profits.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Nathulal vs.

    Phoolchand
    Case Name NATHULAL VS. PHOOLCHAND

    Court SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

    Case decided on 16/10/1969

    Bench J.C SHAH, K.S HEGDE

    Acts/ Rules/ Order referred LAW OF PROPERTY

    SEC 4,53A,70 OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT,SEC 70(4),70(8) MADHYA


    Related section/Articles
    BHARAT LAND REVENUE AND TENANCY ACT

    Facts of the Case


    The appellant, Nathulal, owned a Ginning factory which stood on an agricultural land bearing Khasra No.
    259/1 which stood in his brother Chittarmal’s name in revenue records. On February 26, 1951 he agreed to
    sell the land and the factory to Phoolchand, the respondent, for a sum of Rs. 43,011/-. Upon payment of Rs.
    22, 011/-, the respondent was put in possession of the property and agreed to pay the remaining amount on
    or before May 7, 1951. The terms of the contract were reduced into writing and duly signed by both the
    parties. On October 8, 1951 the appellant rescinded the contract on the grounds that the respondent failed to
    pay the remaining amount. The respondent contended that the appellant had failed to delete his brother’s
    name from the revenue records and had unlawfully altered the contract after execution by adding a clause
    which made it unlawful for the respondent to possess the property after May 7, 1951 without paying the
    balance amount. The District Court of Nimar decreed in favour of the appellant and held the respondent
    liable for breach of contract. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh reversed the decree. The respondent was
    allowed to retain possession of the property on the condition that he paid the appellant mesne profit for the
    period of time between May 7, 1951 and the date he deposited the balance amount. It was further held that if
    the respondent failed to pay the same, he would be liable to pay mesne profit at double the rate for the time
    period during which the appellant was deprived of the possession of the property. The appellant preferred an
    appeal to the Supreme Court with the leave of the High Court.

    Legal Issue
    1.Whether the respondent is eligible to claim the defence of part performance to an action in ejectment by
    the appellant?
    2.Whether the respondent was at all times prepared to fulfil the terms of the contract?

    Petitioner’s Argument
    · By virtue of Section 70(8) of theMadhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act(1960), the plea of part
    performance is not available to a person put in possession of the property under a contract of sale.
    · The act done in pursuance of the contract must be independent of the terms of the contract.

    Respondent’s Argument
    •The appellant failed to perform his promise under the terms of the contract which disentitles him to sue the
    respondent for the breach of its reciprocal promise.
    Judgment
    1.The appellant had contended by virtue of Sec 70(8) of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act,
    the respondent would not be eligible to claim the plea of part-performance of the contract. However, the
    Hon’ble Court held this particular provision to be inapplicable in the instant case as there was no sale since
    the title of the property remained with the appellant; and the respondent was relying on a contract of sale and
    equity. The provision was considered to be applicable only in cases where a sale deed was executed and not
    in cases of part-performance as provided in section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

    The conditions necessary for making out the defence of part performance to an action in ejectment by the
    owner are:

    1.that the contract was in writing and signed by the transferor

    2. that the transferee has,takne possession of the property and any part thereof

    3. that the transferee has done some act in furtherance of the contract; and

    4. that the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract.

    In the instant case, it was indisputably proven that there was a written agreement between the parties to
    transfer the property with clearly defined terms. Upon payment of Rs. 22, 011/-, the respondent was given
    possession of the property. Thus, the first three requisite conditions for the defence of part-performance have
    been satisfied. The respondent had sent a telegram to the appellant on May 7, 1951, offering to pay the
    balance amount upon the execution of a sale deed. The respondent had arranged with a bank to borrow upto
    Rs. 75,000/-, when needed by him, and had sufficient resources at his disposal to enable him to pay the
    amount due. This was held by the court to show the respondent’s willingness and preparedness to perform
    his obligation under the contract.

    2. According to section 70 (4) of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, 1960, the appellant
    was required to obtain the sanction of the State Government before the sale of the property to the respondent
    as the land in question was an agricultural land and the respondent was not an agriculturist. The revenue
    records of the land were in the appellant’s brother’s name. It was implied under the contract that the
    appellant was required to obtain the necessary permission from the State government which the appellant
    never obtained; and also get his brother’s name deleted from the revenue records which was only done on
    October 6, 1952. In considering whether a person is willing to perform his part of the contract the sequence
    in which the obligations under a contract are to be performed must be taken into account. If under the terms
    of the contract, the obligations of the parties have to be performed in a certain sequence, one of the parties to
    the contract cannot require compliance with the obligations by the other party without in the first instance
    performing his own part of the contract which in the sequence of obligations is performable by him earlier.
    Hence, it was held that the respondent could not be called upon to perform his obligations under the contract
    unless the appellant had fulfilled his obligations which came first in sequence. The appeal was dismissed
    with costs.

    Referral Link
    https://lawtimesjournal.in/nathulal-vs-phoolchand/

    https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1009465/

    You might also like