- (1.) R. R. K. Trivedi, J. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23-10-1992 passed by learned 5th Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar, in Original Suit No. 537 of 1984, four defendants have preferred this appeal. By the impugned decree, the aforesaid suit seeking specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 12-6- 1984 has been decreed against defendants appellant Nos. 1 to 4 and defendant respondent No. 4 M/s. Kanpur Exports (Pvt.) Ltd. , hereinafter referred to as the Company (which was defendant No. 1 in the suit ). The subject-matter of dis pute was a house bearing municipal num ber 7/169, constructed over a freehold plot No. 22, measuring 2978 sq. yards, situate in block B, Scheme No. 7, Gutaiyya, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur.
(2.) PLEADINGS of the parties and the facts of the case have already been men tioned in detail in the impugned judgment. However, certain facts which appear necessary to appreciate the most conten tious issues between the parties are being detailed hereunder: Kanpur Improvement Trust, Kan pur, on 23-12-1936 allotted a plot of land bearing No. 22, situate in Block B, in Guttaiyya Scheme No. 7, in favour of one Kanhaiyalal Mishra. The allotment was on lease for 99 years with an. . . . (sic)of the plot of land by payment of double the rent therein reserved for 12 consecutive years. Aforesaid Kanhaiyalai Mishra transferred the plot by registered sale-deed dated 23-4- 1937 in favour of Shanti Narain Verma. Option to purchase had already been exer cised by the previous owner. The full price including interest was paid by Shri Shanti Narain Verma and an endorsement to this effect was made on 17-6-1949. Shanti Narain Verma thereafter got a plan ap proved and constructed various buildings on the aforesaid plot. Shanti Narain Verma in his turn transferred this property in favour of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 with a condition and stipulation that he may have the property reconveyed in this very condition after paying the amount of sale con sideration and expenses of the sale-deed together with interest at the rate of 15% per annum and the cost of improvement, if any, incurred by the vendees within a period of one year, vide sale-deed dated 24th February,. 1979. In the sale-deed ap pellant Nos. 1 and 2 described themselves in the following words: "in favour of Smt. Pushpa Devi Saraf, adult wife of Sri Mohal Lal Saraf and Shri Mohan Lal Saraf, adult son of late Shri Rameshwar Das Saraf, resident of 24/53, Bairahna Road, Kanpur, as promoter/director of M/s. Kanpur Exports (Pvt.) Ltd. , (Proposed), hereinafter called the Vendees, which expres sion, unless repugnant to the context, shall in clude and mean their respective heirs, succes sors, representatives, administrators, executors and assigns of the party of the second part. " The company actually came in ex istence on being registered under the Companies Act on 19-6-1979. The Com pany thereafter filed Original Suit No. 267 of 1980 against Shanti Narain Verma. In this suit the plaintiff Company filed plaint through its directors Mohan Lai Saraf and Smt. Pushpa Devi Saraf, appellant Nos. 2 and 1 respectively (in this appeal) and the relief sought was as under : A decree declaring that the plaintiff are the absolute owner in possession of the entire premises No. 7/169, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur, fully described and detailed at the foot of the plaint and also at the foot of the sale-deed dated 24-2-1979 and defendants their heirs, representatives etc. have no right, title or interest of any sort in the aforesaid property nor they have any right to get the property reconveyed as per terms of the sale-deed dated 24-2-1979. In this suit Shanti Narain Verma filed written statement wherein he admitted execution of the sale-deed and he further expressed that he wants to live with his son residing in U. S. A. and further he does not want to exercise his option to get the property reconveyed. Mohan Lai Saraf appeared as a witness and corroborated the case of the Company. The suit was decreed on 19-8-1982. It ap pears that the aforesaid decree was not challenged by the defendant or any body else and it became final.
(3.) AT this stage, it is also relevant to mention that the Company filed annual return under Section 159 of the Companies Act for the period ending 15-12-1980 iii the. Schedule annexed to this return showing fixed assets. , In this Schedule freehold land valuing Rs. 1,02,500 and building including additions valuing Rs. 1,20,000 has been shown; The address of the Company has been shqwn-7/169, Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur. In the an nual return of 1981 the value of the freehold land has been shown the same but the value of the building has been shown as Rs. 1,35,043. 00 showing additions to the extent of Rs. 15,043. 71 p. In 1982 the value of the freehold land has been shown the same but the value of the building has been shown as Rs. 1,55,018. 87 p. In 1983, the value of the freehold land has been shown as the same but the value of the building has been shown as Rs. 5,71,324. 37 p. , thus showing addition of Rs. 4,16,305. 50p. in that year alone. In 1984, a further addition of Rs. 55,466. 37p. has been shown. Thus, the value of the building became Rs. 6,26,790. 74p. The total value of the property in dispute as per records of the Company was thus Rs. 7,29,290. 74p. There is one more important aspect of the matter worth noticing at this stage, that the Company paid each appellant Nos. 1 and 2 an amount of Rs. 1,11,250. 00 (total amount Rs. 2,22,500. 00) on 5-10-1979, which was towards payment of considera tion of the sale-deed and expenses in curred in payment of stamp duty and registration charges in execution of the sale- deed dated 24-2-1979. The Company also created a charge on the property in dispute by way of equitable mortgage in favour of bank. On 12-6-1984 the Company through its directors appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 4, entered into an agreement to sell in respect of the property in dispute with plaintiff respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In this agreement the Company has been described as absolute owner in possession of the property in dispute. It has also been described that the Company took loan from the State Bank of India Co-operative Industrial Estate Branch, Kanpur, by mortgaging the property in dispute and created an equitable mortgage in favour of the bank and further the said Company stood as guarantor for the liabilities of M/s. Prahlad Rai Dalmia (Textile Manufacturing (P) Ltd. , Kanpur ). The terms and con ditions of the agreement have been detailed. However, the important para graphs relevant to be mentioned at this stage for deciding this suit are: paragraph 10 which says that the first party has leased out the entire house property to Shri Manoj Kumar Poddar; paragraph 12 says that the possession of the aforesaid house property has not been delivered to the second party under this agreement. The agreement was duly registered. Total con sideration agreed was Rs. eleven lacs, out of which Rs. ten lacs were paid by plaintiff respondents. Upto this stage things moved smoothly. However, the events which fol lowed thereafter show that both the par ties proceeded with inherent distrust against each other which resulted in various proceedings. The suit from which this appeal has arisen was filed on 7-8 1984. It was decided on 23-10-1992. During this period of eight years, there were number of proceedings between the parties. The palatial building which ex isted on the land in dispute was demolished. Both the parties did their best to complicate the case. However, under the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court the suit could be decided within a specified time, but this case is a glaring example how the Courts and Court proceedings can be misused and abused by the parties to serve their ends. Every side felt free to initiate any kind of proceedings or suit in any Court. During this period of eight years there were more than twenty proceedings between the parties relating to the proper ty in dispute which, it appears, were in itiated with design to create complication in deciding the suit. Both bar and bench failed to check, the parties from entering into reckless proceedings wasting valuable time of the Courts which are already work ing under great pressure of time. In our opinion, it is high time to think about measures to prevent such misuse and abuse of the process of the Courts as has been done in the present case.;