- (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed by defendant Govind Lal Chawla against the decree passed by the trial court cancelling the sale deed dated 24-12-1966 executed by respondent No. 2 and Mrs. Lucas, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in favour of the appellant. That decree was confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Allahabad, Mrs. C. Gordon and Mrs. Lucas own house No. 34 Muir Road, Allahabad. Its corresponding old Corporation Number was 20. Both these ladies entered into an agreement for sale in favour of respondent Sri C. K. Sharma for a consideration of Rs. 17,000/- on 4-8-1966. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid towards the earnest money. Some time later a further sum of Rs. 750/- was paid to these two ladies towards the earnest money. According to the agreement, the sale deed was to be executed within a period of six weeks from the date of the agreement. Subsequently on 1-12-1966 Madanlal who is a pro forma respondent, sent a notice to vendors and endorsed its copy to Sri C. K. Sharma. On 15-12-1966 the vendors in reply to notice dated 1-12-1966 refuted the allegations contained in it. They asserted that respondent Madanlal did not get the sale-deed executed within six weeks according to the stipulation contained in the agreement dated 10-1-1966 executed by the aforesaid ladies in his favour. They denied the existence of the agreement and they informed him of the agreement dated 4-8-1966 between the plaintiff-respondent Sri C. K. Sharma and themselves. Subsequently, under the influence of some persons the two ladies did not support the fact of the execution of the agreement for sale in favour of the respondent Sri C. K. Sharma. On 20-12-1966 the plaintiff respondent Sri C K. Sharma sent a registered letter to the two ladies to receive the sum of Rs. 11,250/- and to execute the sale deed and be present for registration in the office of the Registrar on 26-12-1966. The two ladies did not reach the office of the Registrar and failed to execute the sale deed. Later on the respondent Sri C. K. Sharma received letter dated 31-12-1966 from Mrs. C. Gordon informing him that they had executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant on 24-12-1966. The sale deed, according to the plaintiff-respondent Sri C. K. Sharma was illegal, inoperative and it was not binding on the plaintiff respondent. The sale deed was challenged on the ground that there did not exist any agreement for sale between the two ladies and respondent Madanlal. Even if any such agreement existed, it stood cancelled and vitiated on account of non-compliance with the terms of the agreement. It was also cancelled by these two ladies. Plaintiff respondent Sri C. K. Sharma was entitled to get a valid sale deed executed in his favour under his valid agreement. The sale deed executed in favour of the appellant was void. The vendors were estopped from transferring the property in suit by sale in favour of the appellant. The sale deed, according to the terms of the agreement in favour of respondent Madanlal was to be executed within six weeks but it was not done. The agreement, therefore, stood cancelled. Plaintiff-respondent Sri C. K. Sharma claimed that he was always ready and was still ready to perform his part of the contract. On these allegations the plaintiff respondent claimed relief for a direction to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to execute a sale deed in respect of 34 Muir Road, Allahabad, in favour of the plaintiff-respondent Sri C. K. Sharma on receipt of the sum of Rs. 11,250/- from him. The alternative relief was for the refund of the sum of Rs. 5,750/-.
(2.) THE respondent-vendors claimed that the appellant was a bona fide purchaser of the said property on the basis of the agreement dated 10-1-1966. The agreement provided that the sale deed would be executed in favour of respondent Madanlal or his nominee. The agreement with the respondent Madanlal dated 10-1-1966 contained the condition that the vendors would get their names mutated and they would satisfy a mortgage-debt due to Sri G. Alphanzo. It was claimed further that under the agreement dated 10-1-1966 the time was not the essence of the contract. Plaintiff-respondent Shi C. K. Sharma had knowledge of the agreement dated 10-1-1966. The respondent however, got another agreement for sale executed subsequently for a consideration of Rs. 17,000/-. The subsequent agreement was inoperative, void and ineffective. The agreement dated 4-8-1966 was not binding on the vendors. The plaintiff-respondent prevented the vendors from complying with the agreement in favour of respondent Madanlal. Respondent Madanlal as well as the appellant filed the written statements. Madanlal claimed that the agreement for sale in favour of himself or his nominee dated 10-1-1966 was a perfectly valid document and subsisted till the sale deed was executed in favour of Madanlal or his nominee the appellant in his case. Under that agreement it was incumbent upon the vendors to satisfy Madanlal or his nominee about their title and its being free from any incumbrance and as such time was not the essence of the contract under agreement dated 10-1-1966. That agreement was never cancelled. Plaintiff-respondent Sri C. K. Sharma had full knowledge of the said agreement. The agreement was not binding on respondent Madanlal. Respondent No. 1 had no right to purchase the property and he had no cause of action. To similar effect is the written statement of the appellant. The main issues that arose before the trial court which are relevant for the purposes of this appeal related to the questions whether under agreement dated 10-1-1966 the time was the essence of the contract; and, whether the vendors had cancelled that agreement. The other questions related to the question whether the agreement in favour of the plaintiff-respondent was void.
(3.) IN appeal before the lower appellate court the following points arose for decision : " 1. Whether time was the essence of the contract between the defendants Nos. 1 and 2/1 to 2/3 and the defendant No. 3 ? 2. Whether the agreement for salein favour of the defendant No. 3 was revoked? 3. Whether the sale executed in favour of the defendant No. 4 was validly executed according to the terms of agreement dated 10-1-1966 ? 4. Whether the agreement dated 4-8-1966 in favour of the plaintiff is void ? 5. Appellant s relief, if any ?" ;