MANU/MP/0526/2003

Equivalent Citation : 2004 (1)MPLJ 252

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (JABALPUR BENCH)

First Appeal No. 247/1997

Decided On: 14.11.2003

Appellants: Sardar Gurucharan Singh

Vs.
Respondent: Mahendra Singh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.P. Khare, J.

Counsels: 
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Amit Verma, Adv.

For Respondents/Defendant: M.P. Acharya, Adv. and Tanu Tandon, Panel Lawyer for the
State

Subject: Civil

Subject: Law of Evidence

Catch Words

Mentioned IN

Acts/Rules/Orders: 
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20; Contract Act, 1872 - Section 182; Indian Evidence
Act, 1872 - Section 114; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Section 96

Disposition: 
Appeal Dismissed

Case Note:
Contract - Suit for specific performance - Suit for specific performance of
contract - Suit dismissed by trial Court - Held, agency need not necessarily be
established by a written document - It may also be inferred by conduct of
parties and course of dealings - relief of specific performance of contract was
equitable relief and it could not given to person who was trying so technical in
his approach - Hence, appeal dismissed Hence, Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT

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.

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 plaintiff's 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.

The plaintiff's 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 plaintiff's 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 plaintiff's 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.

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.

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 plaintiff's father in cancelling the contract is binding on the
plaintiff. The circumstances clearly indicate that the plaintiff's father was acting as agent
in cancelling the contract. The reasons are (a) the plaintiff's father is living with the
plaintiff, (b) the plaintiff's 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 plaintiff's 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.

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.

The appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall bear his own costs and pay that of the
respondents in this appeal.