Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1240 (MP)

Sardar Gurucharan Singh v. Mahendra Singh

2003-11-14

S.P.KHARE

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff under Section 96 C. P. C. against the judgment and decree by which his suit for specific performance of contract has been dismissed. ( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that defendant No. 6 Smt. Nirmala Raghuvanshi was owner of Plot No. J-203-A of Shahanshah Garden, Govindpura, Bhopal. She agreed to sell one fourth of this plot to plaintiff Gurucharan Singh by agreement dated 8-3-1989 (photocopy of agreement is Ex. P-1) for Rs. 29,700/-and received an advance of Rs. 2,200/- from him. There was some encroachment on this plot and therefore, the sale-deed could not be executed. On 6-5-1989 the plaintiffs father cancelled the agreement and made an endorsement to this effect on the back of the agreement. He received back the amount of Rs. 2,200/- on that date. The original agreement was returned to the defendant No. 6. That was filed by her in some criminal case and that was requisitioned by the Trial Court at the time of evidence. ( 3. ) THE plaintiffs case was that he is not bound by the cancellation of the agreement by his father. The case of the defendant No. 6 was that the plaintiffs father was acting on behalf of the plaintiff and, therefore, the cancellation of the agreement is binding on the plaintiff. The Trial Court held that the plaintiffs father was acting as agent of the plaintiff in cancelling the contract and taking back the amount of advance and that is binding on the plaintiff. ( 4. ) IN this appeal the only contention which has been raised on behalf of the appellant is that his father was not acting as agent and therefore, he is not bound by the endorsement made on the back of the agreement indicating the cancellation of the agreement. ( 5. ) AFTER hearing the learned Counsel for both the sides this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the Trial Court is correct. It has given cogent reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the act of the plaintiffs father in cancelling the contract is binding on the plaintiff. The circumstances clearly indicate that the plaintiffs father was acting as agent in cancelling the contract. It has given cogent reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the act of the plaintiffs father in cancelling the contract is binding on the plaintiff. The circumstances clearly indicate that the plaintiffs father was acting as agent in cancelling the contract. The reasons are (a) the plaintiffs father is living with the plaintiff, (b) the plaintiffs father has made an endorsement on the back of the agreement (Ex. P-1) showing that he has the authority on behalf of his son to cancel the agreement, (c) the original agreement was returned back by the plaintiffs father to the defendant No. 6. If the father has not been acting as agent of the son, the father could not have come in custody of the original agreement and he could not have given it to the defendant No. 6, (d) the plaintiff has not examined his father Sardar Atar Singh as a witness in the present case and therefore, an adverse inference is to be drawn against the plaintiff as per Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act and (e) from the evidence of Jagdish Singh Saini (P. W. 2) who was mediator between the vendor and the vendee, it is found that the vendor even did not know the vendee and the signatures of both of them were obtained on this agreement in separate sittings and the vendor had never seen the vendee before he came to the Court. ( 6. ) THESE circumstances clearly depict that the plea taken by the plaintiff that his father had no authority to cancel the contract is baseless. Section 182 of the Contract Act provides : An agent is a person employed to do any act for another or to represent another in dealings with third persons. The person for whom such act is done, or who is so represented, is called the principal. Agency need not necessarily be established by a written document. It may be inferred from circumstances. It may also be inferred by the conduct of the parties and the course of dealings. The relief of specific performance of contract is an equitable relief and it cannot be given to a person who is trying to be so technical in his approach. The judgment and the decrees of the Trial Court are unassailable. ( 7. ) THE appeal is dismissed. The relief of specific performance of contract is an equitable relief and it cannot be given to a person who is trying to be so technical in his approach. The judgment and the decrees of the Trial Court are unassailable. ( 7. ) THE appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall bear his own costs and pay that of the respondents in this appeal.