This article has been written by Mahek Patel, a 3rd semester law student from Balaji Law College
JANARDAN DAS & ORS
v
DURGA PRASAD AGARWALLA & ORS
CITATION:-
2024 INSC 778
(Civil Appeal No. 613 of 2017)
JUDGMENT DATE:- 26 September 2024
DECIDED BY:- Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath and Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal and Hon;ble Justice Prasanna B. Varale.
PARTIES
(i) Janardan Das and Ors – Appellant
(ii) Durga Prasad Agarwalla and Ors – Respondent
ABSTRACT
A legal duty or responsibility that is required to be fulfilled by the parties to contract as outlined in the contract are the duties or responsibilities lawfully known as Contractual Obligations. These contractual obligations are imposed on parties involved in agreement and prove to be essential for businesses. The parties agree to specific duties, responsibilities and promises and each party in terms of contract are expected to follow it, but this is the ideal condition. In case, the parties are unable to perform their actions or duties or keep their promises, there is a breach of contract and a number of consequences that include financial repercussions, reputational damage, loss of business opportunities and mostly specific performance legal action and contract termination. Compliance to terms matters the most in contract or agreement non compliance leads to the dispute arose from a conflict similar to this happened in the landmark case of an ato others versus Durga Prasad agarwala and other dispos to a bigger contact between the parties concerning the ownership of particular piece of land.
INTRODUCTION
The landmark case Janardan Das and others versus Durga Prasad Agarwal and others were the appeal arises from the year 2013 but a date back to the year of 1993 to 1997 where all the relevant and major action to place this case as significant relay in the civil law and guides the issues that are particular in the area of property and contractual obligations. It also focuses on legal surrounding ownership responsibilities of owners and interpretation of agreements are also included.
- BACKGROUND AND RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE
–Late Surendranath Banerjee was the original owner of a property that was a piece of land which was situated in Baripada, Odisha. The property was devolved equally among his five heirs after his demise on 3rd July 1980.
-On 14th April 1993, All the co-owner entered into an oral agreement to sell the suit property to the appellants for a total consideration of 4,20,000 as this agreement was based on mutual decision and understanding and cooperation between the parties and general intent of all co-owners to transfer the property to appellants.
-After that on 6th June,1993 there were dealers operating a petroleum pump on the suit land which comes under Hindustan Petroleum Corporation limited (Respondent no 1&2), entered into an agreement to sell late Soumendra (Defendant no 1) for the purchase of suit property in return of total consideration of 5,70,000 paying Rs.70,000 to confirm the agreement.
-The agreement demanded the sisters which we co-owners should come to baripada within three months to execute the sale deed, as they were not present at the time of agrement, so that the sale deed would be executed before sept.30, 1993, as per the terms of contract.
-Despite knowing that defendant no.1 the late late soumendra did not have full authority to sell the property and sisters consent was needed, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in Baripada Court(T.S No 103 of 1992) demanding to enforce the part of agreement related to Defendant No 1 the late soumendra so he can get his share of property deal. And the plaintiffs needed to own the suit land for commercial purposes as they were running businesses on the property.
-The plaintiff also argued that they were always ready to pay the remaining amount for the property and were ready to complete the sale and also claimed that the prior agreement signed on 27, 1993 was not valid because it was in favor of defendant no.9 to 11 and was done with the knowledge of their prior agreement. And that agreement stated that sisters were needed to come to Baripada within months and should be present when signing the deal.
-The defendants claimed their rightful interest in the property based on prior agreement and respondents on the other side claimed, arguing that defendants had no legal basis for their claim of ownership.
– The whole dispute revolved around the rights of the parties involved, apparent breaches of contract and the interpretation of agreement.
ISSUES
- The legal issues that the court examined were mainly of lunas and possession which included the question of who has the legal ownership of property as this for the central where the dispute arose. And a determination of effective claim was established or not by the appellants still had to be done by the court.
- Analyzing the agreement whether it was valid, enforceable, or any breach by parties involved or not, basically the court examines the agreement made between parties to determine the legal implications and much more.
- Implications of joint ownership was also a question raised in the case which particularly included the right of ownership and relation to responsibility and property management when the conflict arises.
- Defendant to prove that claim of ownership was necessary with evidentiary burden as presentation of documentation and other forms of evidence to prove it job.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT
- The petitioner’s argued that they have entered into an valid agreement on 6th june 1993 to buy the property for 5,70,000 paying Rs 70,000 as advance from the Defendant no 1 late Soumendra and also that to sign the sale deed and complete the deal, the sisters would have to come to Baripada, was clearly stated in the agreement. As on the other side petitioners were ready to pay the remaining amount and close the sale deed.
- Argued that the second sale was illegal and invalid, as already knowing the Defendant No 1 late Soumendra sell the property to Defendant No 9 to 11 on September 27,1993 for4,20,000, despite having a full knowledge of earlier agreement, when they made the second deed.
- They also argued, the sisters had not revoked the General Power of Attorney which was given to Defendant No 1 in 1982, and claimed that it was still valid.
- Also argued that defendants actions were unlawful as it was fraud because petitioners having legal claim on it still know how the property was sold to the appellants(Defendant No 9 to 11).
- At last, Petitioner’s ask the court to order specific performance, requiring all defendants in favor of petitioner to complete the deal by signing the sale deed and paying the remaining amount of the purchased price and also ask the court to enforce the original agreement.
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT
- The defendants argued that the plaintiffs agreement was invalid as it was based on false assumption that Defendant No 1 had the power to sell and that they contend that the plaintiffs agreement to purchase the property on june 6th, 1993 was invalid.
- Defendants argued that the consent of sisters(Defendant No 6 to 8) was never obtained, and it made the agreement incomplete and that the plaintiff failed to secure sister’s consent and fulfill their obligations of signing the sale deed within the agreed time.
- Defendants argued that there was lack of legal authority to sell the property and GPA was only granted to manage property to Defendant No 1 and not to sell it.
- On February 17,1982, partition deed canceled the gpa authority and divided the property and restricted Defendant No 1 role to rent collection.
PRECEDENT’S ANALYSIS
- The Trial Court stated that the General Power of AttorneyGPA), 1982 was not referenced and as outdated and unregistered in the agreement and hence late Soumendra, Defendant No 1 was not an agent for his sisters and acted personally. However, the High Court disagreed with the trial court statement and said ruling that GPA remained valid and did not affect the authority of Defendant No 1 to act on behalf of his sisters.
- And the court focused on the issue that when multiple co-owners own a property, there should be consent to sell or give clear authority to an agent, and that agent cannot bind the co-owners to a sale, without clear authority.
- The Court noted that plaintiffs did not take any necessary steps to get that presence or consent of sisters(Defendant No 6 to 8) which was within the three months period and instead relied on Defendant No 1 and this showed that the plaintiffs was unable to complete the sale as per the agreement
ANALYSIS OF LAW
- The rule of law states that the court should grant specific performance in the circumstances if it is fair and reasonable by the court to do so.And the consideration of circumstances is must to make the decision equitable and fair.
- The Relief of Specific Performance is not granted automatically, even if it is legally possible. The Relief of Specific Performance comes under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 that forces compulsion on someone to fulfill the promises and actions in a contract which means the court holds the power to decide on the basis of specific facts of case to enforce the contract or not. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act states that it is at the discretion of the court to grant the specific performance or not.
- There was an amendment in Section 20, but before that amendment it was stated that just because law allows it, the court was not required to grant specific performance. The court decision must be sound and reasonable and must be based on relevant facts and reasonable principles
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court supported the discretionary nature of specific performance and threw light on the fact, just that the contract is legal, there is no obligation on court to grant such relief merely and the Supreme Court also focused on the Specific Relief Act. 1963 Section 20 and also considered the issue of specific performance and noted that the decision of granting specific performance must be based on circumstances and valid and sound facts. The Supreme Court also emphasized on the validity of General Power of Attorney and considered the question of whether the Defendant No 1 was in authority to sell the property on the behalf of the co-owners or not and also the court agreed with the High Court’s decision to grant specific performance as the agreement was found enforceable and valid
CONCLUSION
This case highlights the necessity for the need of attention in detail to legal agreements and highlights the role of judiciary in upholding principles of fairness and equitability in property disputes. This holds significance in the ruling and contract obligations and remains a significant reference point for future disputes involving ownership, possession, and contract obligations.
The case Janardan Das and Ors v. Durga Prasad Agarwalla and Ors is a pivotal example of Indian Judiciary safeguarding and navigating the property disputes and underscores the critical role of contractual obligations in implications among parties and the complexities involved in Property law.
REFERENCES
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/148041821/
- https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/396922013710156036judgement26-sep-2024-566648.pdf
- https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/agreement-to-sell-property-under-joint-ownership
- https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/00100079961
- https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/specific-relief-act-in-agreement-to-sell-property-under-joint-ownership-onus-is-on-plaintiff-to-secure-consent-of-all-co-owners-supreme-court-272892
