Indira Devi (Appellant) Vs. Veena Gupta & Ors. (Respondents)

(CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9833 of 2014)

(2JB, Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal JJ., delivered by Rajesh Bindal, J.)

Facts: The appellant herein has challenged the order dated September 26, 2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Second Appeal No. 123 of 2000.

Issue: Whether the vendor can assign the right contained in a sale deed to get the property registered back or the right being personal cannot be assigned?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:

It was submitted that late Kishori Lal Sahu executed the conditional sale deed along with his son in favour Indira Devi on 5.8.1977, and he had no right to assign his right to repurchase the property, to any third party, the right being personal to him, and also, there was no clause in the sale deed in terms of which such right could be assigned to anyone else. Further, the Gift Deed by which the property was given to Veena Gupta cannot be termed as Gift Deed as there was consideration for transfer of the property in question as she could get the property in question only on payment of the consideration money mentioned in the sale deed, and from a perusal of the plaint, it is not evident that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to fulfil the condition as mentioned in the conditional sale deed as they had no money available with them. Further, the stand taken by the appellant in the written statement was that late Kishori Lal Sahu was not keeping good health, hence the Gift Deed executed in favour of Veena Gupta was not a valid document. Reliance was placed upon the judgments in Bhoju Mandal and Ors. vs. Debnath Bhagat and Kapilaben and Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Jayantilal. Further, multiple reliefs having been claimed in the suit, the same was not maintainable as on the one hand, the claim was for specific performance whereas on the other hand, the plea of tenancy was also raised.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondents:

It is submitted that the only relief pressed by him is at serial no. 1 in the suit i.e. with reference to the specific performance with possession. It is a case in which late Kishori Lal Sahu, father-in-law of Veena Gupta, had executed the Gift Deed in her favour pertaining to his properties including the property in question. It is specifically mentioned in the Gift Deed that Veena Gupta can take possession of the property sold to Indira Devi by purchasing the same from her. She will have all rights available to her which late Kishori Lal Sahu had. As per the condition in the sale deed, the property could be repurchased in case ₹ 5000/- were paid to Indira Devi up to July, 1984. The amount was offered to Indira Devi, however, when she refused to accept the same, civil suit was filed. As the appellants were not accepting the consideration, during the pendency of the civil suit an application was filed in March, 1984 seeking permission to deposit ₹ 5000/- in the Court. On permission being granted by the Court, the amount was deposited in Court on April 29, 1984. Hence, there was compliance of the condition laid down in the sale deed for getting the property back. The right to get the aforesaid property back was assigned by late Kishori Lal Sahu to the respondent no.1 vide registered gift deed. The error committed by both the courts below in dismissing the suit was corrected by the High Court. Reliance was placed upon the case of T.M. Balakrishna Mudaliar vs. M. Satyanarayana Rao and Shyam Singh vs. Daryao Singh. Further, it was submitted that such a right is not personal and the same can always be assigned.

Held: The court, while dismissing the present appeal, upheld the judgment of the high court stating that, “we do not find any error in the judgment of the High Court.” The court observed that, “The condition of right to repurchase in sale deed will not be personal to the vendor unless the terms in the documents specifically state so. Such a right can always be assigned and the contract containing such condition shall be enforceable. The only exception being that such a right should not be personal in nature. The assignment of obligations in a document is not possible without the consent of the other party. No implied prohibition of transfer or assignment can be inferred in a document. The benefit of contract is assignable in cases where it does not make any difference to the person on whom the obligations lies, to which of two persons he is to discharge.”