When the agreement is not that of assingment of rights by Vendees of earlier agreement of sale , he can not file a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale
=
Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that there is no privity of contract between the Appellants and Respondent Nos. 1. Respondent Nos. 1 were not party to the 1986 agreement. Vice versa, the Appellants were not party to the 1987 agreements, though whether or not they had knowledge of the same is disputed.
Hence Respondent Nos. 1cannot seek specific performance of the 1986 agreement, or for that matter, the 1987 agreements, against the Appellants, except by suing as ‘representatives-in-interest’ of the original vendees under Section 15(b) of the Specific Relief Act.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10683-86 OF 2014
Kapilaben & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth Through POA
Gopalbhai Madhusudan Patel & Ors. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
1. These appeals arises out of judgement of the High Court of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad dated 31.7.2014, allowing the appeals of
the respective Respondent Nos. 1 in the four Civil Appeal Nos.
10683-86 of 2014 before us (hereinafter ‘Respondent Nos. 1’),
against judgement and order of the Additional District Judge,
1
Vadodara dated 2.4.2013 and order dated 30.12.2011 of the
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara; and decreeing the suits
SCS Nos. 657-660/1988 filed by Respondent Nos. 1 for specific
performance against the Appellants herein.
I. Background Facts
2. This case concerns four suits for specific performance filed
by the Respondent Nos. 1/Plaintiffs against the
Appellants/Defendants Nos. 1-5. One Naranbhai Ramdas Patel
(Defendant No. 1, now deceased) was the original owner of
property bearing Survey No. 354/1, admeasuring 1 acre and 31
gunthas in Village Manjalpur of Vadodara district (hereinafter ‘suit
property’). He, along with Defendants Nos. 2-5 (relatives of
Defendant No. 1) executed agreement to sell dated 11.3.1986
(‘1986 agreement’) in respect of the suit property in favour of
Respondent Nos. 3-11/Defendants Nos. 6-9 (hereinafter
‘original vendees’), for which the original vendees paid earnest
money of Rs. 1,54,251. The suit property was included in Town
Planning Scheme No. 19 of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation
and possession of the suit property was to be given to the original
2
vendees once the aforesaid Scheme was finalized. A registered
sale deed in respect of the suit property was to be executed upon
receipt of the remaining consideration from the original vendees,
the deadline for which was within three months of finalization of
the Town Planning Scheme.
The case of Respondent Nos. 1 is that the original vendees
thereafter executed four agreements to sell dated 14.9.1987
(‘1987 agreements’) in respect of four different portions of the
suit property, assigning the former’s rights under the 1986
agreement in the latter’s favour, and that earnest money of Rs.
5000/- was paid under each agreement. Notably, the Appellants
were not parties to the 1987 agreements.
Under the 1987 agreements, it was purportedly open to
Respondent Nos. 1 to make preparations for construction of a
housing scheme over the suit property and issue advertisement
for the same. Hence they claim that consequently, possession of
the suit property was given to them, that a Bhoomi Pujan was
conducted for laying foundation stone on the land and the
members of the housing scheme were also registered. Further,
3
that they also obtained the layout plan and construction
permission for the housing scheme from Vadodara Municipal
Corporation at their own cost, and the deceased original owner
Mr. Naranbhai Patel had put his signature on the layout plan.
Subsequently, dispute arose between the parties, and the
original vendees filed suit SCS No. 194/1988 on 4.4.1988 before
the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Vadodara (hereinafter
‘trial court’), seeking specific performance of the 1986 agreement
against the Appellants. They claimed that they had served notice
to the Appellants on 11.3.1988 seeking execution of sale deed in
their favour, but the latter had given evasive reply to the same;
that they were deliberately avoiding execution of sale deed so as
to take advantage of increase in real estate prices. Per contra, the
Appellants claimed that they had on 25.3.1988, by way of reply to
the original vendees’ legal notice, cancelled the 1986 agreement
as the original vendees had not paid the remaining consideration
as required.
Respondent Nos. 1 were not party to SCS No. 194/1988; and
no averment was made in the said suit regarding the 1987
4
agreements. Instead, on 21.11.88, Respondent Nos. 1 filed four
separate suits SCS Nos. 657-660/1988 against the Appellants and
the original vendees seeking specific performance of the 1987
agreements. Respondent Nos. 1 alleged that the Appellants and
the original vendees were conniving with each other to deny their
rights under the 1987 agreements, so as to sell the land to a third
party in view of the increasing price of real estate in Vadodara.
The Appellants in their written statements to SCS Nos. 657-
660/1988 denied having any dealings with Respondent Nos. 1 and
also stated that the original vendees had never informed them
about the 1987 agreements. They averred that since the original
vendees had never become the legal owners of the suit property,
they did not have any right or authority to enter into any kind of
transaction qua the land with Respondent Nos. 1; and that the
plaints were concocted to usurp the land.
Both sets of suits, SCS No. 194/1988 and SCS Nos. 657-
660/1988, remained pending for a number of years. During that
period, notably, the Appellants and the original vendees acting
together executed a Power-of-Attorney dated 11.11.2001 in
5
favour of one Dhananjay Vallabhbhai Patel. It was stated in the
Power-of-Attorney that the Appellants and the original vendees
are relinquishing their rights in the suit property to Mr. Dhananjay
Patel for the purpose of executing sale deed in favour of one
Kantilal Ambalal Patel, who is the uncle of the said Dhananjay
Patel.
A. Proceedings in SCS No. 194/1988 (Original vendees’ suit)
3. The original vendees filed withdrawal pursis on 26.7.2002
seeking to unconditionally withdraw SCS No. 194/1988 on the
ground that the 1986 agreement was fraudulently registered; that
they were not aware of the identity of the true owners of the suit
property at the time of the 1986 agreement as it was executed
through a broker, that the original owners of the suit property had
not signed the agreement, nor had they received any
consideration; and the 1986 agreement was fraudulently
registered, hence no dispute could be raised regarding the suit
property. On the same day, Respondent Nos. 1 sought
impleadment as co-plaintiffs in SCS No. 194/1988.
6
The trial court by way of common order dated 22.9.2002
rejected the original vendees’ withdrawal application and allowed
the impleadment applications of Respondent Nos. 1. The High
Court in revision reversed the trial court’s order, though without
going into the merits of the claim made by Respondent Nos. 1.
The Court held that the original vendees had an absolute right to
withdraw their suit unconditionally irrespective of their
motivations for the same. Further, that it was open to Respondent
Nos. 1 to raise all available contentions in their separate suits,
including admissions, if any, made by the original vendees in their
suit SCS No. 194/1988. It was noted that Respondent Nos. 1
cannot be permitted to substitute the original vendees as
plaintiffs, as otherwise substantial amendment would be required
to the original vendees’ plaint. The special leave petitions filed by
Respondent Nos. 1 against the High Court judgement were
dismissed by this Court by order dated 16.11.2004 in SLP (Civil)
Nos. 22664-65/2004.
Respondent Nos. 1 subsequently made application in SCS
No. 658 of 2008, for revival of SCS No. 194/1988, contending that
7
the original vendees had been misled into withdrawing the latter
suit; however the application was dismissed by the trial court and
the High Court by orders dated 24.1.2008 and 25.3.2008
respectively. Hence the withdrawal of the original vendees’ suit
has attained finality.
B. Proceedings in SCS Nos. 657-660/1988 (Present suit)
4. It is relevant to note that though the original plaints in SCS
Nos. 657-660/1988 were seeking specific performance only of the
1987 agreements, Respondent Nos. 1 amended their plaints in
2005 to seek a declaration that the 1986 agreement is still in
force and that the Appellants were bound to execute the 1986
agreement on the basis of the assignment made in their favour.
The trial court by common order dated 30.12.2011 dismissed
all four suits. It rejected Respondent Nos.1/Plaintiffs’ contention
that the original vendees had withdrawn their suit SCS No.
194/1988 in collusion with the Appellants herein. This was based
on the reasoning that the High Court and this Court had, in the
8
earlier proceedings, sanctioned the unconditional withdrawal of
SCS No. 194/1988 and not made any finding of judicial
impropriety or fraud.
The trial court further found that in light of revocation of the
1986 agreement by the Appellants and withdrawal of SCS No.
194/1988 by the original vendees, it was not open to the Plaintiffs
to re-agitate for specific performance of the said agreement. That
in any case, even if the 1986 agreement was assumed to be in
force, the original vendees could not have assigned their
outstanding obligation to pay the remaining consideration without
the written consent of the original owner i.e., Defendant No. 1
Naranbhai. Since the 1987 agreements and the 1986 agreement
were not ad idem, and new conditions were laid down in the 1987
agreements, such consent was indispensable.
That neither of the Appellants had given any such consent,
either verbally or by conduct; nor was there any evidence that the
original vendees had paid the remaining consideration to the
Appellants, such that the former’s rights under the 1986
agreement had fortified and consequently passed on to the
9
Plaintiffs under the 1987 agreements. Therefore the 1987
agreements were void, illegal and unenforceable. Further, that
the 1987 agreements were also vague and unenforceable
inasmuch as the suit property was not specifically defined therein.
The trial court additionally held that the Plaintiffs had not
taken any steps, such as depositing the remaining consideration
owed by the original vendees, or paying betterment tax as per
the terms of the 1987 agreements, to show that they themselves
were ready and willing to perform the contracts. Hence this was
not a fit case to grant either specific performance or damages,
though Respondent Nos. 1 were held entitled to return of the
earnest money paid by them with interest.
The Learned Additional District Judge, Vadodara by
judgement dated 2.04.2013 affirmed the trial court’s findings. It
was re-emphasized that a party to a contract cannot assign their
obligations thereunder without the other party’s consent. There
was nothing on record to show that the Appellants had given such
consent. In any case, since the original vendees had never shown
their readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration
10
due by them, no right of specific performance had accrued in
their favour. Further, that the original vendees had anyway
waived their rights by withdrawing their suit in SCS No. 194/1988.
Hence the question of assignment of such a right to Respondent
Nos. 1, such that they could claim specific performance of the
1986 agreement as representatives-in-interest of the original
vendees under Section 15(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
(‘Specific Relief Act’) did not arise.
However, the High Court in the impugned judgement found
that there was a definite linkage between the 1986 agreement
and the 1987 agreements such that there was a valid assignment
of rights in favour of Respondent Nos.1, which made them
‘representatives-in-interest’ of the original vendees for the
purpose of Section 15(b) of the Specific Relief Act. The High Court
reasoned that since all the material rights under the 1986
agreement were assigned under the 1987 agreements,
supplementary conditions specified in the latter did not change
the nature of the basic contract.
11
Further, that reading Sections 40 and 54 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 (‘Transfer of Property Act’) and Section 15(b)
of the Specific Relief Act together, the ‘interest’ assignable under
Section 15(b) need not be an interest in the property or a charge
created in the property. A contractual interest in the form of an
obligation annexed to ownership of the property may also be
assignable. It was discernible from the facts and evidence on
record that the Appellants had given implied consent for such
assignment. Mr. Naranbhai Patel’s signature on planning
permissions and his presence at the Bhoomi Pujan ceremony
were taken as proof that the original owners had consented to the
involvement of Respondent Nos. 1 in developing a housing
scheme on the suit property. Therefore, it was found that the
1986 agreement remained alive, and the rights derived therefrom
in favour of the original vendees were validly assigned under the
1987 agreements.
Additionally, since the High Court and this Court had clarified
while sanctioning withdrawal of SCS No. 194/1988 that such
withdrawal would not preclude Respondent Nos. 1 from pursuing
12
their independent remedies, the withdrawal of the original
vendees’ suit could not prejudice the rights of Respondent Nos. 1
to specific performance. That actual tendering of money was not
necessary to evince readiness and willingness to perform the
contract as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act,
and the specific averments made in the pleadings by Respondent
Nos. 1 would suffice.
It may be relevant to note at this juncture that the High
Court by interim order dated 27.6.2013 had directed Respondent
Nos. 1 to deposit an amount equal to five times the amount of
original consideration under the 1987 agreements, and
Respondent Nos. 1 have submitted that they are ready and willing
to forfeit the entire amount deposited in respect of the relief of
specific performance, so as to balance equities between the
parties.
We further note from the order sheets maintained by this
Court that the parties have been directed to maintain status quo
during the pendency of the appeal and no steps have been taken
for the execution of the impugned judgement.
13
II. Issues and Submissions made by the Parties
5. Therefore, upon a perusal of the entire record, the following
issues arise for our consideration:
Firstly, whether there was a valid assignment of rights by the
original vendees in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 under the 1987
agreements?
Secondly, whether the right of Respondent Nos. 1 to seek
specific performance survives subsequent to the cancellation of
the 1986 agreement by the Appellants and withdrawal of suit in
SCS No. 194/1988 by the original vendees?
Thirdly, whether relief may be granted to Respondent Nos. 1,
and if so, of what nature?
6. Learned senior counsel for the Appellants, Mr. Ranjit Kumar
argued that there was no privity of contract between the
Appellants and Respondents Nos. 1 in the respective appeals.
That the 1987 agreements were contingent contracts under
Section 31 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (‘Contract Act’), as the
rights therein could only be enforced upon the completion of the
1986 agreement, and the interest created under the 1987
14
agreements was also a ‘contingent interest’ under Section 21 of
the Transfer of Property Act. Since the 1986 agreement was
cancelled, Respondent Nos. 1 could not seek specific performance
of the 1987 agreements.
Further, that the purported ‘assignment’ under the 1987
agreements practically amounted to a novation of the 1986
agreement, and the Appellants had not accorded any consent for
such an assignment. Even if such an assignment had taken place,
there was no evidence to show that Respondent Nos. 1 were
ready and willing to perform their contractual obligations.
Respondent Nos. 1 had never communicated their willingness to
complete their contractual obligations under the 1986 agreement
to the Appellants.
Per contra, learned senior counsel for Respondent No. 1, Mr.
C.U. Singh argued that the Appellants i.e. the landowners were
colluding with the original vendees to avoid sale of the suit
property, as evidenced by the fact that the original vendees had
not contested the suit at any point of time. He brought to this
Court’s notice that there could not have been a termination of the
15
1986 agreement in 1988 given that in the Power-of-Attorney
dated 11.11.2001 (supra) executed by Defendant Nos. 1-9 (the
Appellants and the original vendees) in favour of Mr. Dhananjay
Patel, it is stated that the original vendees have acquired rights in
the suit property under the 1986 agreement. It is not open to the
Appellants to accept the existence of the 1986 agreement in the
Power-of-Attorney and reject it for the purpose of these suits.
He further relied upon this Court’s decisions in Shyam
Singh v. Daryao Singh (Dead) By LRs. and Others, (2003) 12
SCC 160, Ram Baran Prasad v. Ram Mohit Hazra and
Others, AIR 1967 SC 744 and Habiba Khatoon v. Ubaidul Huq
and others, (1997) 7 SCC 452 to argue that no implied
prohibition can be read into the 1986 agreement against
assignability of the interest therein. The requirement of consent
of the other party for assignment under Section 15(b) of the
Specific Relief Act is only applicable in cases where the obligation
is of a personal nature or where there is an express bar in the
contract prohibiting such assignment of interest. Further, that in
any case, the original owner Naranbhai Patel’s conduct in
16
arranging for development permissions and consenting to
publication of advertisement regarding development of housing
scheme in the suit property shows that there was implied consent
for assignment of rights under the 1986 agreement in favour of
Respondent Nos. 1.
III. Validity of Assignment of Rights under 1987
Agreements.
A. General principles governing assignability of contracts
7. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the present
case, it is evident that there is no privity of contract between the
Appellants and Respondent Nos. 1. Respondent Nos. 1 were not
party to the 1986 agreement. Vice versa, the Appellants were not
party to the 1987 agreements, though whether or not they had
knowledge of the same is disputed. Hence Respondent Nos. 1
cannot seek specific performance of the 1986 agreement, or for
that matter, the 1987 agreements, against the Appellants, except
by suing as ‘representatives-in-interest’ of the original vendees
under Section 15(b) of the Specific Relief Act. Section 15(b)
provides that:
17
“15. Who may obtain specific performance.—
Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, the
specific performance of a contract may be obtained by
—
…(b) the representative in interest or the principal, of
any party thereto: Provided that where the learning,
skill, solvency or any personal quality of such party is a
material ingredient in the contract, or where the
contract provides that his interest shall not be
assigned, his representative in interest or his principal
shall not be entitled to specific performance of the
contract, unless such party has already performed his
part of the contract, or the performance thereof by his
representative in interest, or his principal, has been
accepted by the other party…”
It is well-settled that the term ‘representative-in-interest’
includes the assignee of a contractual interest. Though the
provisions of the Contract Act do not particularly deal with the
assignability of contracts, this Court has opined time and again
that a party to a contract cannot assign their obligations/liabilities
without the consent of the other party. A Constitution Bench of
this Court in Khardah Company Ltd v. Raymon & Co (India)
Private Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1810 has laid out this principle as
follows:
“…An assignment of a contract might result by transfer
either of the rights or of the obligations thereunder. But
18
there is a well-recognised distinction between these
two classes of assignments. As a rule obligations under
a contract cannot be assigned except with the consent
of the promisee, and when such consent is given, it is
really a novation resulting in substitution of liabilities.
On the other hand, rights under a contract are
assignable unless the contract is personal in its nature
or the rights are incapable of assignment either under
the law or under an agreement between the parties.”
(emphasis supplied)
In Khardah Company, the Appellant jute manufacturers
were entitled to receive price for the jute from the buyer/dealer of
jute only upon delivery of certain shipping documents. Question
arose as to whether such an obligation coupled with a benefit was
assignable. This Court held, based on the above-mentioned
principle, that the terms of the contract strongly implied that the
rights thereunder are non-transferable.
Similarly, in Indu Kakkar v. Haryana State Industrial
Development Corporation Ltd. and Another, (1999) 2 SCC
37, the Respondent Corporation allotted certain land subject to
the condition that the allottee shall complete construction of a
building unit on the plot within a period of two years. Upon the
allottee’s failure to comply with the said condition, the
Respondent resumed the land. The allottee filed a civil suit
19
challenging the resumption order, during the pendency of which
he assigned his rights in the plot to the Appellant. The issue was
whether such an assignee could challenge the resumption order.
A two-judge Bench of this Court held, in reliance upon Khardah
Company (supra), that:
“19.…Answer of the said question depends upon the
terms of allotment. Assignment by act of parties may
cause assignment of rights or of liabilities under a
contract. As a rule a party to a contract cannot transfer
his liabilities under the contract without consent of the
other party. This rule applies both at the Common Law
and in Equity (vide para 337 of Halsbury’s Laws of
England, Fourth Edition, Part 9). Where a contract
involves mutual rights and obligations an assignee of a
right cannot enforce that right without fulfilling the corelative obligations.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. Even in a case of assignment of rights simplicitor, such
assignment would necessarily require the consent of the other
party to the contract if it is of a ‘personal nature’. This is
elucidated by learned authors Pollock and Mulla in their
commentary on The Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts (R.
Yashod Vardhan, and Chitra Narayan eds., 15th edn., Vol. I) at
page 730:
20
“A contract which is such that the promisor must
perform it in person, viz. involving personal
considerations or personal skill or qualifications (such
as his credit), are by their nature not assignable. The
benefit of contract is assignable in ‘cases where it can
make no difference to the person on whom the
obligation lies to which of two persons he is to
discharge it.’ The contractual rights for the payment of
money or to building work, for e.g., do not involve
personal considerations.” (emphasis supplied)
9. It is true that Section 15(b) of the Specific Relief Act does not
specifically state that ‘obligations’ may not be assigned except
with the consent of the other party. However a reading of Section
15(b) shows that it is nothing but a statutory formulation of the
ratio laid down in the above-mentioned precedents. The rule
stated in Section 15(b) is that any interest in a contract can be
specifically enforced by the assignee thereof, except where the
‘personal quality’ of the party is a material ingredient in the
contract; or where the contract, expressly or by necessary
implication, prohibits the beneficiary from transferring their
contractual interest to third parties. Hence Section 15(b) does not
contradict the general law on assignability of contracts as laid
down by this Court, but rather clarifies that the same conditions
21
will have to be satisfied if an assignee seeks to secure specific
performance of the assigned contract.
Therefore, for example, a contract for a singing performance
or a painting may not be assignable as it involves a personal skill
and even if it is assigned, the assignee cannot seek specific
performance in respect of such a contract. Whereas it may be
said that general contracts for payment of money or building work
do not involve any personal considerations, as it makes no
difference as to who discharges the obligation to pay or perform a
certain act under the contract. Hence the assignees of parties to
such contracts may seek specific performance.
10. It is important to note that in the modern context where
parties frequently enter into complex commercial transactions, it
is perhaps not so convenient to pigeonhole contracts as being
either ‘general’ or of ‘personal nature’ or as involving the
assignment of purely ‘rights’ or ‘obligations’. It is possible that a
contract may involve a bundle of mutual rights and obligations
which are intertwined with each other. However, as this Court has
held in Indu Kakkar (supra), the same rule as laid down in
22
Khardah Company (supra) and as stated in Section 15(b) of the
Specific Relief Act, may be applied to such contracts as well.
Where the conferment of a right or benefit is contingent upon, or
coupled with, the discharge of a burden or liability, such right or
benefit cannot be transferred without the consent of the person to
whom the co-extensive burden or liability is owed.
It further has to be seen whether conferment of benefits
under a contract is based upon the specific assurance that the coextensive obligations will be performed only by the parties to the
contract and no other persons. It would be inequitable for a
promisor to contract out his responsibility to a stranger if it is
apparent that the promisee would not have accepted
performance of the contract had it been offered by a third party.
This is especially important in business relationships where the
pre-existing goodwill between parties is often a significant factor
influencing their decision to contract with each other. This
principle is already enshrined in Section 40 of the Contract Act:
“40. Person by whom promise is to be performed.
—If it appears from the nature of the case that it was
the intention of the parties to any contract that any
promise contained in it should be performed by the
23
promisor himself, such promise must be performed by
the promisor. In other cases, the promisor or his
representative may employ a competent person to
perform it.”
It is clear from the above that the promisor ‘may employ a
competent person’, or assign the contract to a third party as the
case may be, to perform the promise only if the parties did not
intend that the promisor himself must perform it. Hence in a case
where the contract is of personal nature, the promisor must
necessarily show that the promisee was agreeable to
performance of the contract by a third person/assignee, so as to
claim exemption from the condition specified in Section 40 of the
Contract Act. If the promisee’s consent is not obtained, the
assignee cannot seek specific performance of the contract.
B. Application of the above principles to the present case
11. Hence, in light of the above discussion, whether or not an
assignee can seek specific performance would depend upon the
construction of the contract in each case. The Court would have
to determine the nature of interest sought to be transferred,
whether such interest was meant to be enforceable only between
24
the parties to the contract and whether the contract expressly or
by necessary implication bars assignment of such interest.
In the present case, the 1986 agreement provided that the
Appellants shall execute sale deed in favour of the original
vendees or ‘name proposed by the vendee’ subject to the
assurance that the latter would pay the remaining consideration
and betterment tax within the stipulated time, and that the
former would obtain the necessary permissions for construction
on the suit property.
We are of the opinion that the term ‘name proposed by the
vendee’ in the 1986 agreement refers to a nominee to be
proposed at the time of execution of the sale deed and not a
subsequent assignee. At the same time, it is true the 1986
agreement does not contain any express bar against
assignability. The question which arises then is whether the
purported assignment in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 under the
1987 agreements is legally valid.
The decisions in Shyam Singh (supra) and Ram Baran
Prasad (supra) relied upon by Respondent Nos. 1 will not help
25
their case as this Court found on the particular facts of those
cases that the terms of the contracts in those cases did not
implicitly bar assignment. These decisions cannot be taken to lay
down a blanket rule that in every case where there is no express
bar against assignability stipulated in the contract, assignment of
the interest therein should be upheld without looking at the
context in which the parties contracted with each other. It has to
be seen whether the terms of the contract, and the circumstances
in which the contract was entered into, lead to an inference that
the parties did not intend to make their interest therein
assignable. This is the principle of law as authoritatively stated
by the Constitution Bench in Khardah Company (supra):
“…We agree that when a contract has been reduced to
writing we must look only to that writing for
ascertaining the terms of the agreement between the
parties but it does not follow from this that it is only
what is set out expressly and in so many words in the
document that can constitute a term of the contract
between the parties. If on a reading of the document as
a whole, it can fairly be deduced from the words
actually used therein that the parties had agreed on a
particular term, there is nothing in law which prevents
them from setting up that term. The terms of a contract
can be expressed or implied from what has been
expressed. It is in the ultimate analysis a question of
construction of the contract. And again it is well
26
established that in construing a contract it would be
legitimate to take into account surrounding
circumstances. Therefore on the question whether
there was an agreement between the parties that the
contract was to be non-transferable, the absence of a
specific clause forbidding transfer is not conclusive.
What has to be seen is whether it could be held on a
reasonable interpretation of the contract, aided by such
considerations as can legitimately be taken into
account that the agreement of the parties was that it
was not to be transferred. When once a conclusion is
reached that such was the understanding of the parties,
there is nothing in law which prevents effect from being
given to it.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act states that a
contract for sale of immovable property is a contract that “a sale
shall take place on terms settled between the parties”. It is a
settled position that such a contract does not by itself create any
interest in or charge on the property. The buyer only obtains a
right to get the sale deed executed, upon fulfilment of the
applicable terms and conditions as consented to by all the parties.
Hence the 1986 agreement, being an agreement to sell the suit
property, is a clear case of a contract combining mutual rights
and obligations. The original vendees were to obtain the right to
27
get the sale deed executed in respect of the suit property upon
fulfilment of the conditions specified in the 1986 agreement.
The 1987 agreements purport to assign the aforesaid rights
and obligations of the original vendees in favour of Respondent
Nos. 1/ Plaintiffs. Upon comparison of the 1986 agreement and
the 1987 agreements, we find that the 1987 agreements amount
to nothing but a substitution of liabilities wherein Respondent
Nos. 1 have assumed the same obligations which the original
vendees were supposed to have performed under the 1986
agreements. This includes not only the obligation to pay
betterment tax but also the obligation to reimburse the cost of
acquiring planning permissions and to get the suit property
levelled for the purpose of construction.
Additionally, the 1987 agreements also provide that the
plaintiffs can prepare the scheme for construction of housing
society on the suit property, get the members of the society
registered and execute agreements with them, and publish
advertisement boards regarding the scheme. Hence this is not a
case of assignment of agreement for sale simplicitor, but
28
assignment of what is akin to a development agreement for a
housing scheme on the suit property. A contract of this nature is
ordinarily based upon certain personal understanding between
the parties regarding the course of business to be undertaken on
the suit property.
It is not disputed that the original vendees had not fulfilled
their obligations under the 1986 agreement prior to the purported
‘assignment’ under the 1987 agreements. Hence they had not
‘performed their part of the contract’ as required under Section
15(b) of the Specific Relief Act. Applying the law as stated above,
the assignment of such a contract cannot be enforced without
proving that it was with the knowledge and consent of the original
owners/Appellants.
13. It is further relevant to note that under the 1987
agreements, payment of the remaining consideration amount is
to be made to the original vendees, not the Appellants, and
possession of the suit property is to be handed over by the
original vendees. Even the consideration to be paid was twice the
rate as specified in the 1986 agreement. The 1987 agreements
29
nowhere provide for discharge of the original vendees’ pending
obligations towards the Appellants by Respondent Nos. 1. Hence
we are inclined to accept the Appellants’ argument that the 1987
agreements were not a case of assignment but appear to be
independent agreements for sale which were contingent on the
execution of the 1986 agreement. Therefore, the only way
Respondent Nos. 1 can seek specific performance of the 1986
agreement against the Appellants is by proving the Appellants’
knowledge of and consent to transfer of the original vendees’
rights and liabilities to Respondent Nos. 1.
14. It is true that Section 15(b) does not stipulate in what form
the promisee’s ‘acceptance’ of performance by a representativein-interest of the promisor should be communicated. It may be
either through express written consent, or implied from the
actions of the promisee; though as a matter of caution, the former
mode of acceptance would inevitably have higher evidentiary
value. However in the present case, as the trial court and the
Learned District Judge have rightly appreciated on facts, we do
not find that the Appellants have either by words or by conduct,
30
consented to the assignment of the 1986 agreement in favour of
Respondent Nos. 1.
The mere fact that the original owner Mr. Naranbhai Patel
signed the development permissions for the suit property and
may have been present at the Bhoomi Pujan does not indicate
that he consented to assignment of the 1986 agreement. The
1986 agreement stipulated that the original owners would give
their signatures for obtaining necessary permissions for the
proposed development on the suit property. Hence, as the trial
court has rightly noted, Mr. Naranbhai Patel was only carrying out
his contractual obligation as he had promised to the original
vendees. This does not indicate that he was under the impression
that the said permissions were now to be obtained for the benefit
of Respondent Nos. 1.
It is pertinent to note that Respondent Nos. 1 conceded
before the trial court that the Appellants had given their
signatures on the layout plan for the housing scheme on the suit
property to the original vendees, not to Respondent Nos. 1. Even
the advertisement regarding the ‘Unnati Park’ housing scheme
31
nowhere indicates that the Appellants/original owners were
developing the project on the suit property in partnership with
Respondent Nos. 1.
Thus we conclude that there was no valid assignment of
rights flowing from the 1986 agreement to Respondent Nos. 1,
and they cannot seek specific performance against the
Appellants.
IV. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to Specific
Performance?
15. Having found that Respondent Nos. 1 cannot seek specific
performance of the 1986 agreement, it may be considered
whether they can seek any remedy qua the 1987 agreements as
against the Appellants and the original vendees. Since there is no
privity of contract between the Appellants and Respondent Nos. 1
there no longer remains any question of granting specific
performance as against the former.
16. Further, as noted above, the terms of the 1987 agreements
indicate that they are contingent contracts, as defined under
Section 31 of the Contract Act:
32
“31. “Contingent contract” defined.—A “contingent
contract” is a contract to do or not to do something, if
some event, collateral to such contract, does or does
not happen.”
Sections 32 and 35 further state that:
“32. Enforcement of contracts contingent on an
event happening.—Contingent contracts to do or not
to do anything if an uncertain future event happens,
cannot be enforced by law unless and until that event
has happened.”
“35. When contracts become void, which are
contingent on happening of specified event
within fixed time.—Contingent contracts to do or not
to do anything, if a specified uncertain event happens
within a fixed time, become void if, at the expiration of
the time fixed, such event has not happened, or if,
before the time fixed, such event becomes impossible.”
The 1987 agreements are clearly contingent contracts
inasmuch as they could only be enforced had the original vendees
obtained the right to get the sale deed executed, and taken
possession of the suit property as per the terms of the 1986
agreement. Once the 1986 agreement was cancelled by the
Appellants, the original vendees’ rights thereunder ceased to
exist.
33
17. Respondent Nos. 1 contend that the Power-of-Attorney dated
11.11.2001 (supra) in favour of Mr. Dhananjay Patel shows that
the 1986 agreement was not cancelled and that the original
vendees continued to retain their right to get the sale deed
executed in their favour. It was brought to our notice by the
Appellants that the aforesaid Power-of-Attorney was subsequently
cancelled by the original vendees on 6.6.2003, on the ground that
Mr. Dhananjay Patel had obtained the Power-of-Attorney through
misrepresentation. However, it is important to note that the
original vendees have stated in the aforesaid cancellation notice
that they have ‘joint ownership’ of the suit property. Therefore we
find some merit in the argument that the Appellants and the
original vendees are acting in collusion.
Nevertheless, regardless of what may be stated in the
Power-of-Attorney, it has to be seen whether the original vendees
have legally acquired any rights in the suit property. Respondent
Nos. 1 have admitted in their plaints that the Town Planning
Scheme was finalized prior to the 1986 agreement. Hence the
deadline stipulated under the 1986 agreement for payment of
34
remaining consideration by the original vendees, i.e., within three
months of finalization of the Scheme, has long since lapsed. Since
the original vendees never paid the remaining consideration
within the time specified in the 1986 agreement, their rights
thereunder never fructified.
Even assuming that the original vendees acquired some
interest in the suit property, the subsequent withdrawal of the
suit SCS No. 194/1988 shows that the original vendees do not
intend to enforce the 1986 agreement. The trial court has found
that though the suit property de jure vested with the concerned
government authority under the Town Planning Scheme, the de
facto possession of the property remains with the Appellants and
the original vendees have not taken possession thereof.
Furthermore, both the trial court and the learned District Judge
have on facts found that the original vendees have not shown any
readiness or willingness to pay the remaining consideration to the
Appellants. Hence since the original vendees have abandoned
their rights under the 1986 agreement, enforcement of the 1987
agreements has become virtually impossible and Respondent
35
Nos. 1 cannot seek specific performance of the latter.
Consequently the 1987 agreements are void and unenforceable
as provided under Sections 32 and 35 of the Contract Act.
18. It is relevant to note at this juncture that Respondent Nos. 1
have also pleaded that the Power-of-Attorney dated 11.11.2001
(supra) was executed in breach of the interim injunction order
issued by the trial court directing maintenance of status quo in
respect of the suit property. Hence they seek that action should
be taken against the Appellants and the original vendees under
Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for
breach of the injunction order. However, we are in agreement
with the trial court’s findings that the Plaintiffs’ application under
Order XXXIX was moved after a delay of three years and six
months, and the said delay has not been satisfactorily explained.
Hence the application is barred by laches. In any case, since the
original vendees have revoked the Power-of-Attorney, status-quo
has been restored, and the Plaintiffs’ cause of action no longer
exists. The Learned District Judge and the High Court in the
impugned judgement have affirmed the trial court’s reasoning on
36
this aspect, and we see no reason to overturn their concurrent
findings on this matter.
It was also re-iterated before us by Respondent Nos. 1 that
the original vendees were misled into withdrawing their suit SCS
No. 194/1988 and that the same should not be binding upon the
plaintiffs. However given that the withdrawal of the suit has
attained finality before this Court, and the Trial Court and the
High Court have concurrently found in the separate application
made by the plaintiffs in SCS No. 658/1988, by orders dated
24.1.2008 and 25.3.2008 supra (respectively), that the original
vendees cannot be compelled to continue their suit against their
desire, we are not inclined to interfere with the same.
V. Alternative Remedy to be given to the plaintiffs
19. Though we have found that on facts and law, Respondent
Nos. 1 are not entitled to specific performance of the 1986 and
1987 agreements, prima facie it does appear that the Appellants
and the original vendees have colluded to frustrate performance
of the 1987 agreements. The trial court had directed the original
vendees to reimburse earnest money of Rs. 5000 paid by
37
Respondent Nos. 1 towards each of the 1987 agreements with an
interest of 9% p.a. from 14.9.1987 till the date of realization. We
are in agreement with the aforesaid direction.
With regard to the appropriate remedy to be provided to
Respondent Nos. 1, it may also be pertinent to refer to Section 53
of the Contract Act, which provides that:
“53. Liability of party preventing event on which
the contract is to take effect.—When a contract
contains reciprocal promises, and one party to the
contract prevents the other from performing his
promise, the contract becomes voidable at the option of
the party so prevented: and he is entitled to
compensation from the other party for any loss which
he may sustain in consequence of the non-performance
of the contract.”
Therefore, since the original vendees seem to have
relinquished their rights in the 1986 agreement so as to frustrate
performance of the 1987 agreements, it would be just in these
circumstances to award compensation to the Plaintiffs for the loss
of opportunity and inconvenience suffered by them. Though no
remedy is available as against the Appellants on account of
absence of privity of contract, we consider it apposite to direct
the original vendees, that is, Respondent Nos. 3-11 in the four
38
appeals, to pay Rs. 1,80,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of the suits, as damages to the
Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 in these appeals, as prayed for in
their pleadings. We also direct the High Court to expeditiously
release and remit back the consideration amount deposited by
Respondent Nos. 1 in lieu of specific performance.
20. Hence these appeals are partly allowed, and the impugned
judgement is set aside, in the aforesaid terms.
…..…………................................J.
(MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)
….…………………………...............J.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
New Delhi;
November 25, 2019
39
=
Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident that there is no privity of contract between the Appellants and Respondent Nos. 1. Respondent Nos. 1 were not party to the 1986 agreement. Vice versa, the Appellants were not party to the 1987 agreements, though whether or not they had knowledge of the same is disputed.
Hence Respondent Nos. 1cannot seek specific performance of the 1986 agreement, or for that matter, the 1987 agreements, against the Appellants, except by suing as ‘representatives-in-interest’ of the original vendees under Section 15(b) of the Specific Relief Act.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10683-86 OF 2014
Kapilaben & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Ashok Kumar Jayantilal Sheth Through POA
Gopalbhai Madhusudan Patel & Ors. …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
1. These appeals arises out of judgement of the High Court of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad dated 31.7.2014, allowing the appeals of
the respective Respondent Nos. 1 in the four Civil Appeal Nos.
10683-86 of 2014 before us (hereinafter ‘Respondent Nos. 1’),
against judgement and order of the Additional District Judge,
1
Vadodara dated 2.4.2013 and order dated 30.12.2011 of the
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara; and decreeing the suits
SCS Nos. 657-660/1988 filed by Respondent Nos. 1 for specific
performance against the Appellants herein.
I. Background Facts
2. This case concerns four suits for specific performance filed
by the Respondent Nos. 1/Plaintiffs against the
Appellants/Defendants Nos. 1-5. One Naranbhai Ramdas Patel
(Defendant No. 1, now deceased) was the original owner of
property bearing Survey No. 354/1, admeasuring 1 acre and 31
gunthas in Village Manjalpur of Vadodara district (hereinafter ‘suit
property’). He, along with Defendants Nos. 2-5 (relatives of
Defendant No. 1) executed agreement to sell dated 11.3.1986
(‘1986 agreement’) in respect of the suit property in favour of
Respondent Nos. 3-11/Defendants Nos. 6-9 (hereinafter
‘original vendees’), for which the original vendees paid earnest
money of Rs. 1,54,251. The suit property was included in Town
Planning Scheme No. 19 of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation
and possession of the suit property was to be given to the original
2
vendees once the aforesaid Scheme was finalized. A registered
sale deed in respect of the suit property was to be executed upon
receipt of the remaining consideration from the original vendees,
the deadline for which was within three months of finalization of
the Town Planning Scheme.
The case of Respondent Nos. 1 is that the original vendees
thereafter executed four agreements to sell dated 14.9.1987
(‘1987 agreements’) in respect of four different portions of the
suit property, assigning the former’s rights under the 1986
agreement in the latter’s favour, and that earnest money of Rs.
5000/- was paid under each agreement. Notably, the Appellants
were not parties to the 1987 agreements.
Under the 1987 agreements, it was purportedly open to
Respondent Nos. 1 to make preparations for construction of a
housing scheme over the suit property and issue advertisement
for the same. Hence they claim that consequently, possession of
the suit property was given to them, that a Bhoomi Pujan was
conducted for laying foundation stone on the land and the
members of the housing scheme were also registered. Further,
3
that they also obtained the layout plan and construction
permission for the housing scheme from Vadodara Municipal
Corporation at their own cost, and the deceased original owner
Mr. Naranbhai Patel had put his signature on the layout plan.
Subsequently, dispute arose between the parties, and the
original vendees filed suit SCS No. 194/1988 on 4.4.1988 before
the Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Vadodara (hereinafter
‘trial court’), seeking specific performance of the 1986 agreement
against the Appellants. They claimed that they had served notice
to the Appellants on 11.3.1988 seeking execution of sale deed in
their favour, but the latter had given evasive reply to the same;
that they were deliberately avoiding execution of sale deed so as
to take advantage of increase in real estate prices. Per contra, the
Appellants claimed that they had on 25.3.1988, by way of reply to
the original vendees’ legal notice, cancelled the 1986 agreement
as the original vendees had not paid the remaining consideration
as required.
Respondent Nos. 1 were not party to SCS No. 194/1988; and
no averment was made in the said suit regarding the 1987
4
agreements. Instead, on 21.11.88, Respondent Nos. 1 filed four
separate suits SCS Nos. 657-660/1988 against the Appellants and
the original vendees seeking specific performance of the 1987
agreements. Respondent Nos. 1 alleged that the Appellants and
the original vendees were conniving with each other to deny their
rights under the 1987 agreements, so as to sell the land to a third
party in view of the increasing price of real estate in Vadodara.
The Appellants in their written statements to SCS Nos. 657-
660/1988 denied having any dealings with Respondent Nos. 1 and
also stated that the original vendees had never informed them
about the 1987 agreements. They averred that since the original
vendees had never become the legal owners of the suit property,
they did not have any right or authority to enter into any kind of
transaction qua the land with Respondent Nos. 1; and that the
plaints were concocted to usurp the land.
Both sets of suits, SCS No. 194/1988 and SCS Nos. 657-
660/1988, remained pending for a number of years. During that
period, notably, the Appellants and the original vendees acting
together executed a Power-of-Attorney dated 11.11.2001 in
5
favour of one Dhananjay Vallabhbhai Patel. It was stated in the
Power-of-Attorney that the Appellants and the original vendees
are relinquishing their rights in the suit property to Mr. Dhananjay
Patel for the purpose of executing sale deed in favour of one
Kantilal Ambalal Patel, who is the uncle of the said Dhananjay
Patel.
A. Proceedings in SCS No. 194/1988 (Original vendees’ suit)
3. The original vendees filed withdrawal pursis on 26.7.2002
seeking to unconditionally withdraw SCS No. 194/1988 on the
ground that the 1986 agreement was fraudulently registered; that
they were not aware of the identity of the true owners of the suit
property at the time of the 1986 agreement as it was executed
through a broker, that the original owners of the suit property had
not signed the agreement, nor had they received any
consideration; and the 1986 agreement was fraudulently
registered, hence no dispute could be raised regarding the suit
property. On the same day, Respondent Nos. 1 sought
impleadment as co-plaintiffs in SCS No. 194/1988.
6
The trial court by way of common order dated 22.9.2002
rejected the original vendees’ withdrawal application and allowed
the impleadment applications of Respondent Nos. 1. The High
Court in revision reversed the trial court’s order, though without
going into the merits of the claim made by Respondent Nos. 1.
The Court held that the original vendees had an absolute right to
withdraw their suit unconditionally irrespective of their
motivations for the same. Further, that it was open to Respondent
Nos. 1 to raise all available contentions in their separate suits,
including admissions, if any, made by the original vendees in their
suit SCS No. 194/1988. It was noted that Respondent Nos. 1
cannot be permitted to substitute the original vendees as
plaintiffs, as otherwise substantial amendment would be required
to the original vendees’ plaint. The special leave petitions filed by
Respondent Nos. 1 against the High Court judgement were
dismissed by this Court by order dated 16.11.2004 in SLP (Civil)
Nos. 22664-65/2004.
Respondent Nos. 1 subsequently made application in SCS
No. 658 of 2008, for revival of SCS No. 194/1988, contending that
7
the original vendees had been misled into withdrawing the latter
suit; however the application was dismissed by the trial court and
the High Court by orders dated 24.1.2008 and 25.3.2008
respectively. Hence the withdrawal of the original vendees’ suit
has attained finality.
B. Proceedings in SCS Nos. 657-660/1988 (Present suit)
4. It is relevant to note that though the original plaints in SCS
Nos. 657-660/1988 were seeking specific performance only of the
1987 agreements, Respondent Nos. 1 amended their plaints in
2005 to seek a declaration that the 1986 agreement is still in
force and that the Appellants were bound to execute the 1986
agreement on the basis of the assignment made in their favour.
The trial court by common order dated 30.12.2011 dismissed
all four suits. It rejected Respondent Nos.1/Plaintiffs’ contention
that the original vendees had withdrawn their suit SCS No.
194/1988 in collusion with the Appellants herein. This was based
on the reasoning that the High Court and this Court had, in the
8
earlier proceedings, sanctioned the unconditional withdrawal of
SCS No. 194/1988 and not made any finding of judicial
impropriety or fraud.
The trial court further found that in light of revocation of the
1986 agreement by the Appellants and withdrawal of SCS No.
194/1988 by the original vendees, it was not open to the Plaintiffs
to re-agitate for specific performance of the said agreement. That
in any case, even if the 1986 agreement was assumed to be in
force, the original vendees could not have assigned their
outstanding obligation to pay the remaining consideration without
the written consent of the original owner i.e., Defendant No. 1
Naranbhai. Since the 1987 agreements and the 1986 agreement
were not ad idem, and new conditions were laid down in the 1987
agreements, such consent was indispensable.
That neither of the Appellants had given any such consent,
either verbally or by conduct; nor was there any evidence that the
original vendees had paid the remaining consideration to the
Appellants, such that the former’s rights under the 1986
agreement had fortified and consequently passed on to the
9
Plaintiffs under the 1987 agreements. Therefore the 1987
agreements were void, illegal and unenforceable. Further, that
the 1987 agreements were also vague and unenforceable
inasmuch as the suit property was not specifically defined therein.
The trial court additionally held that the Plaintiffs had not
taken any steps, such as depositing the remaining consideration
owed by the original vendees, or paying betterment tax as per
the terms of the 1987 agreements, to show that they themselves
were ready and willing to perform the contracts. Hence this was
not a fit case to grant either specific performance or damages,
though Respondent Nos. 1 were held entitled to return of the
earnest money paid by them with interest.
The Learned Additional District Judge, Vadodara by
judgement dated 2.04.2013 affirmed the trial court’s findings. It
was re-emphasized that a party to a contract cannot assign their
obligations thereunder without the other party’s consent. There
was nothing on record to show that the Appellants had given such
consent. In any case, since the original vendees had never shown
their readiness and willingness to pay the balance consideration
10
due by them, no right of specific performance had accrued in
their favour. Further, that the original vendees had anyway
waived their rights by withdrawing their suit in SCS No. 194/1988.
Hence the question of assignment of such a right to Respondent
Nos. 1, such that they could claim specific performance of the
1986 agreement as representatives-in-interest of the original
vendees under Section 15(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
(‘Specific Relief Act’) did not arise.
However, the High Court in the impugned judgement found
that there was a definite linkage between the 1986 agreement
and the 1987 agreements such that there was a valid assignment
of rights in favour of Respondent Nos.1, which made them
‘representatives-in-interest’ of the original vendees for the
purpose of Section 15(b) of the Specific Relief Act. The High Court
reasoned that since all the material rights under the 1986
agreement were assigned under the 1987 agreements,
supplementary conditions specified in the latter did not change
the nature of the basic contract.
11
Further, that reading Sections 40 and 54 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 (‘Transfer of Property Act’) and Section 15(b)
of the Specific Relief Act together, the ‘interest’ assignable under
Section 15(b) need not be an interest in the property or a charge
created in the property. A contractual interest in the form of an
obligation annexed to ownership of the property may also be
assignable. It was discernible from the facts and evidence on
record that the Appellants had given implied consent for such
assignment. Mr. Naranbhai Patel’s signature on planning
permissions and his presence at the Bhoomi Pujan ceremony
were taken as proof that the original owners had consented to the
involvement of Respondent Nos. 1 in developing a housing
scheme on the suit property. Therefore, it was found that the
1986 agreement remained alive, and the rights derived therefrom
in favour of the original vendees were validly assigned under the
1987 agreements.
Additionally, since the High Court and this Court had clarified
while sanctioning withdrawal of SCS No. 194/1988 that such
withdrawal would not preclude Respondent Nos. 1 from pursuing
12
their independent remedies, the withdrawal of the original
vendees’ suit could not prejudice the rights of Respondent Nos. 1
to specific performance. That actual tendering of money was not
necessary to evince readiness and willingness to perform the
contract as required under Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act,
and the specific averments made in the pleadings by Respondent
Nos. 1 would suffice.
It may be relevant to note at this juncture that the High
Court by interim order dated 27.6.2013 had directed Respondent
Nos. 1 to deposit an amount equal to five times the amount of
original consideration under the 1987 agreements, and
Respondent Nos. 1 have submitted that they are ready and willing
to forfeit the entire amount deposited in respect of the relief of
specific performance, so as to balance equities between the
parties.
We further note from the order sheets maintained by this
Court that the parties have been directed to maintain status quo
during the pendency of the appeal and no steps have been taken
for the execution of the impugned judgement.
13
II. Issues and Submissions made by the Parties
5. Therefore, upon a perusal of the entire record, the following
issues arise for our consideration:
Firstly, whether there was a valid assignment of rights by the
original vendees in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 under the 1987
agreements?
Secondly, whether the right of Respondent Nos. 1 to seek
specific performance survives subsequent to the cancellation of
the 1986 agreement by the Appellants and withdrawal of suit in
SCS No. 194/1988 by the original vendees?
Thirdly, whether relief may be granted to Respondent Nos. 1,
and if so, of what nature?
6. Learned senior counsel for the Appellants, Mr. Ranjit Kumar
argued that there was no privity of contract between the
Appellants and Respondents Nos. 1 in the respective appeals.
That the 1987 agreements were contingent contracts under
Section 31 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (‘Contract Act’), as the
rights therein could only be enforced upon the completion of the
1986 agreement, and the interest created under the 1987
14
agreements was also a ‘contingent interest’ under Section 21 of
the Transfer of Property Act. Since the 1986 agreement was
cancelled, Respondent Nos. 1 could not seek specific performance
of the 1987 agreements.
Further, that the purported ‘assignment’ under the 1987
agreements practically amounted to a novation of the 1986
agreement, and the Appellants had not accorded any consent for
such an assignment. Even if such an assignment had taken place,
there was no evidence to show that Respondent Nos. 1 were
ready and willing to perform their contractual obligations.
Respondent Nos. 1 had never communicated their willingness to
complete their contractual obligations under the 1986 agreement
to the Appellants.
Per contra, learned senior counsel for Respondent No. 1, Mr.
C.U. Singh argued that the Appellants i.e. the landowners were
colluding with the original vendees to avoid sale of the suit
property, as evidenced by the fact that the original vendees had
not contested the suit at any point of time. He brought to this
Court’s notice that there could not have been a termination of the
15
1986 agreement in 1988 given that in the Power-of-Attorney
dated 11.11.2001 (supra) executed by Defendant Nos. 1-9 (the
Appellants and the original vendees) in favour of Mr. Dhananjay
Patel, it is stated that the original vendees have acquired rights in
the suit property under the 1986 agreement. It is not open to the
Appellants to accept the existence of the 1986 agreement in the
Power-of-Attorney and reject it for the purpose of these suits.
He further relied upon this Court’s decisions in Shyam
Singh v. Daryao Singh (Dead) By LRs. and Others, (2003) 12
SCC 160, Ram Baran Prasad v. Ram Mohit Hazra and
Others, AIR 1967 SC 744 and Habiba Khatoon v. Ubaidul Huq
and others, (1997) 7 SCC 452 to argue that no implied
prohibition can be read into the 1986 agreement against
assignability of the interest therein. The requirement of consent
of the other party for assignment under Section 15(b) of the
Specific Relief Act is only applicable in cases where the obligation
is of a personal nature or where there is an express bar in the
contract prohibiting such assignment of interest. Further, that in
any case, the original owner Naranbhai Patel’s conduct in
16
arranging for development permissions and consenting to
publication of advertisement regarding development of housing
scheme in the suit property shows that there was implied consent
for assignment of rights under the 1986 agreement in favour of
Respondent Nos. 1.
III. Validity of Assignment of Rights under 1987
Agreements.
A. General principles governing assignability of contracts
7. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the present
case, it is evident that there is no privity of contract between the
Appellants and Respondent Nos. 1. Respondent Nos. 1 were not
party to the 1986 agreement. Vice versa, the Appellants were not
party to the 1987 agreements, though whether or not they had
knowledge of the same is disputed. Hence Respondent Nos. 1
cannot seek specific performance of the 1986 agreement, or for
that matter, the 1987 agreements, against the Appellants, except
by suing as ‘representatives-in-interest’ of the original vendees
under Section 15(b) of the Specific Relief Act. Section 15(b)
provides that:
17
“15. Who may obtain specific performance.—
Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, the
specific performance of a contract may be obtained by
—
…(b) the representative in interest or the principal, of
any party thereto: Provided that where the learning,
skill, solvency or any personal quality of such party is a
material ingredient in the contract, or where the
contract provides that his interest shall not be
assigned, his representative in interest or his principal
shall not be entitled to specific performance of the
contract, unless such party has already performed his
part of the contract, or the performance thereof by his
representative in interest, or his principal, has been
accepted by the other party…”
It is well-settled that the term ‘representative-in-interest’
includes the assignee of a contractual interest. Though the
provisions of the Contract Act do not particularly deal with the
assignability of contracts, this Court has opined time and again
that a party to a contract cannot assign their obligations/liabilities
without the consent of the other party. A Constitution Bench of
this Court in Khardah Company Ltd v. Raymon & Co (India)
Private Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1810 has laid out this principle as
follows:
“…An assignment of a contract might result by transfer
either of the rights or of the obligations thereunder. But
18
there is a well-recognised distinction between these
two classes of assignments. As a rule obligations under
a contract cannot be assigned except with the consent
of the promisee, and when such consent is given, it is
really a novation resulting in substitution of liabilities.
On the other hand, rights under a contract are
assignable unless the contract is personal in its nature
or the rights are incapable of assignment either under
the law or under an agreement between the parties.”
(emphasis supplied)
In Khardah Company, the Appellant jute manufacturers
were entitled to receive price for the jute from the buyer/dealer of
jute only upon delivery of certain shipping documents. Question
arose as to whether such an obligation coupled with a benefit was
assignable. This Court held, based on the above-mentioned
principle, that the terms of the contract strongly implied that the
rights thereunder are non-transferable.
Similarly, in Indu Kakkar v. Haryana State Industrial
Development Corporation Ltd. and Another, (1999) 2 SCC
37, the Respondent Corporation allotted certain land subject to
the condition that the allottee shall complete construction of a
building unit on the plot within a period of two years. Upon the
allottee’s failure to comply with the said condition, the
Respondent resumed the land. The allottee filed a civil suit
19
challenging the resumption order, during the pendency of which
he assigned his rights in the plot to the Appellant. The issue was
whether such an assignee could challenge the resumption order.
A two-judge Bench of this Court held, in reliance upon Khardah
Company (supra), that:
“19.…Answer of the said question depends upon the
terms of allotment. Assignment by act of parties may
cause assignment of rights or of liabilities under a
contract. As a rule a party to a contract cannot transfer
his liabilities under the contract without consent of the
other party. This rule applies both at the Common Law
and in Equity (vide para 337 of Halsbury’s Laws of
England, Fourth Edition, Part 9). Where a contract
involves mutual rights and obligations an assignee of a
right cannot enforce that right without fulfilling the corelative obligations.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. Even in a case of assignment of rights simplicitor, such
assignment would necessarily require the consent of the other
party to the contract if it is of a ‘personal nature’. This is
elucidated by learned authors Pollock and Mulla in their
commentary on The Indian Contract and Specific Relief Acts (R.
Yashod Vardhan, and Chitra Narayan eds., 15th edn., Vol. I) at
page 730:
20
“A contract which is such that the promisor must
perform it in person, viz. involving personal
considerations or personal skill or qualifications (such
as his credit), are by their nature not assignable. The
benefit of contract is assignable in ‘cases where it can
make no difference to the person on whom the
obligation lies to which of two persons he is to
discharge it.’ The contractual rights for the payment of
money or to building work, for e.g., do not involve
personal considerations.” (emphasis supplied)
9. It is true that Section 15(b) of the Specific Relief Act does not
specifically state that ‘obligations’ may not be assigned except
with the consent of the other party. However a reading of Section
15(b) shows that it is nothing but a statutory formulation of the
ratio laid down in the above-mentioned precedents. The rule
stated in Section 15(b) is that any interest in a contract can be
specifically enforced by the assignee thereof, except where the
‘personal quality’ of the party is a material ingredient in the
contract; or where the contract, expressly or by necessary
implication, prohibits the beneficiary from transferring their
contractual interest to third parties. Hence Section 15(b) does not
contradict the general law on assignability of contracts as laid
down by this Court, but rather clarifies that the same conditions
21
will have to be satisfied if an assignee seeks to secure specific
performance of the assigned contract.
Therefore, for example, a contract for a singing performance
or a painting may not be assignable as it involves a personal skill
and even if it is assigned, the assignee cannot seek specific
performance in respect of such a contract. Whereas it may be
said that general contracts for payment of money or building work
do not involve any personal considerations, as it makes no
difference as to who discharges the obligation to pay or perform a
certain act under the contract. Hence the assignees of parties to
such contracts may seek specific performance.
10. It is important to note that in the modern context where
parties frequently enter into complex commercial transactions, it
is perhaps not so convenient to pigeonhole contracts as being
either ‘general’ or of ‘personal nature’ or as involving the
assignment of purely ‘rights’ or ‘obligations’. It is possible that a
contract may involve a bundle of mutual rights and obligations
which are intertwined with each other. However, as this Court has
held in Indu Kakkar (supra), the same rule as laid down in
22
Khardah Company (supra) and as stated in Section 15(b) of the
Specific Relief Act, may be applied to such contracts as well.
Where the conferment of a right or benefit is contingent upon, or
coupled with, the discharge of a burden or liability, such right or
benefit cannot be transferred without the consent of the person to
whom the co-extensive burden or liability is owed.
It further has to be seen whether conferment of benefits
under a contract is based upon the specific assurance that the coextensive obligations will be performed only by the parties to the
contract and no other persons. It would be inequitable for a
promisor to contract out his responsibility to a stranger if it is
apparent that the promisee would not have accepted
performance of the contract had it been offered by a third party.
This is especially important in business relationships where the
pre-existing goodwill between parties is often a significant factor
influencing their decision to contract with each other. This
principle is already enshrined in Section 40 of the Contract Act:
“40. Person by whom promise is to be performed.
—If it appears from the nature of the case that it was
the intention of the parties to any contract that any
promise contained in it should be performed by the
23
promisor himself, such promise must be performed by
the promisor. In other cases, the promisor or his
representative may employ a competent person to
perform it.”
It is clear from the above that the promisor ‘may employ a
competent person’, or assign the contract to a third party as the
case may be, to perform the promise only if the parties did not
intend that the promisor himself must perform it. Hence in a case
where the contract is of personal nature, the promisor must
necessarily show that the promisee was agreeable to
performance of the contract by a third person/assignee, so as to
claim exemption from the condition specified in Section 40 of the
Contract Act. If the promisee’s consent is not obtained, the
assignee cannot seek specific performance of the contract.
B. Application of the above principles to the present case
11. Hence, in light of the above discussion, whether or not an
assignee can seek specific performance would depend upon the
construction of the contract in each case. The Court would have
to determine the nature of interest sought to be transferred,
whether such interest was meant to be enforceable only between
24
the parties to the contract and whether the contract expressly or
by necessary implication bars assignment of such interest.
In the present case, the 1986 agreement provided that the
Appellants shall execute sale deed in favour of the original
vendees or ‘name proposed by the vendee’ subject to the
assurance that the latter would pay the remaining consideration
and betterment tax within the stipulated time, and that the
former would obtain the necessary permissions for construction
on the suit property.
We are of the opinion that the term ‘name proposed by the
vendee’ in the 1986 agreement refers to a nominee to be
proposed at the time of execution of the sale deed and not a
subsequent assignee. At the same time, it is true the 1986
agreement does not contain any express bar against
assignability. The question which arises then is whether the
purported assignment in favour of Respondent Nos. 1 under the
1987 agreements is legally valid.
The decisions in Shyam Singh (supra) and Ram Baran
Prasad (supra) relied upon by Respondent Nos. 1 will not help
25
their case as this Court found on the particular facts of those
cases that the terms of the contracts in those cases did not
implicitly bar assignment. These decisions cannot be taken to lay
down a blanket rule that in every case where there is no express
bar against assignability stipulated in the contract, assignment of
the interest therein should be upheld without looking at the
context in which the parties contracted with each other. It has to
be seen whether the terms of the contract, and the circumstances
in which the contract was entered into, lead to an inference that
the parties did not intend to make their interest therein
assignable. This is the principle of law as authoritatively stated
by the Constitution Bench in Khardah Company (supra):
“…We agree that when a contract has been reduced to
writing we must look only to that writing for
ascertaining the terms of the agreement between the
parties but it does not follow from this that it is only
what is set out expressly and in so many words in the
document that can constitute a term of the contract
between the parties. If on a reading of the document as
a whole, it can fairly be deduced from the words
actually used therein that the parties had agreed on a
particular term, there is nothing in law which prevents
them from setting up that term. The terms of a contract
can be expressed or implied from what has been
expressed. It is in the ultimate analysis a question of
construction of the contract. And again it is well
26
established that in construing a contract it would be
legitimate to take into account surrounding
circumstances. Therefore on the question whether
there was an agreement between the parties that the
contract was to be non-transferable, the absence of a
specific clause forbidding transfer is not conclusive.
What has to be seen is whether it could be held on a
reasonable interpretation of the contract, aided by such
considerations as can legitimately be taken into
account that the agreement of the parties was that it
was not to be transferred. When once a conclusion is
reached that such was the understanding of the parties,
there is nothing in law which prevents effect from being
given to it.”
(emphasis supplied)
12. Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act states that a
contract for sale of immovable property is a contract that “a sale
shall take place on terms settled between the parties”. It is a
settled position that such a contract does not by itself create any
interest in or charge on the property. The buyer only obtains a
right to get the sale deed executed, upon fulfilment of the
applicable terms and conditions as consented to by all the parties.
Hence the 1986 agreement, being an agreement to sell the suit
property, is a clear case of a contract combining mutual rights
and obligations. The original vendees were to obtain the right to
27
get the sale deed executed in respect of the suit property upon
fulfilment of the conditions specified in the 1986 agreement.
The 1987 agreements purport to assign the aforesaid rights
and obligations of the original vendees in favour of Respondent
Nos. 1/ Plaintiffs. Upon comparison of the 1986 agreement and
the 1987 agreements, we find that the 1987 agreements amount
to nothing but a substitution of liabilities wherein Respondent
Nos. 1 have assumed the same obligations which the original
vendees were supposed to have performed under the 1986
agreements. This includes not only the obligation to pay
betterment tax but also the obligation to reimburse the cost of
acquiring planning permissions and to get the suit property
levelled for the purpose of construction.
Additionally, the 1987 agreements also provide that the
plaintiffs can prepare the scheme for construction of housing
society on the suit property, get the members of the society
registered and execute agreements with them, and publish
advertisement boards regarding the scheme. Hence this is not a
case of assignment of agreement for sale simplicitor, but
28
assignment of what is akin to a development agreement for a
housing scheme on the suit property. A contract of this nature is
ordinarily based upon certain personal understanding between
the parties regarding the course of business to be undertaken on
the suit property.
It is not disputed that the original vendees had not fulfilled
their obligations under the 1986 agreement prior to the purported
‘assignment’ under the 1987 agreements. Hence they had not
‘performed their part of the contract’ as required under Section
15(b) of the Specific Relief Act. Applying the law as stated above,
the assignment of such a contract cannot be enforced without
proving that it was with the knowledge and consent of the original
owners/Appellants.
13. It is further relevant to note that under the 1987
agreements, payment of the remaining consideration amount is
to be made to the original vendees, not the Appellants, and
possession of the suit property is to be handed over by the
original vendees. Even the consideration to be paid was twice the
rate as specified in the 1986 agreement. The 1987 agreements
29
nowhere provide for discharge of the original vendees’ pending
obligations towards the Appellants by Respondent Nos. 1. Hence
we are inclined to accept the Appellants’ argument that the 1987
agreements were not a case of assignment but appear to be
independent agreements for sale which were contingent on the
execution of the 1986 agreement. Therefore, the only way
Respondent Nos. 1 can seek specific performance of the 1986
agreement against the Appellants is by proving the Appellants’
knowledge of and consent to transfer of the original vendees’
rights and liabilities to Respondent Nos. 1.
14. It is true that Section 15(b) does not stipulate in what form
the promisee’s ‘acceptance’ of performance by a representativein-interest of the promisor should be communicated. It may be
either through express written consent, or implied from the
actions of the promisee; though as a matter of caution, the former
mode of acceptance would inevitably have higher evidentiary
value. However in the present case, as the trial court and the
Learned District Judge have rightly appreciated on facts, we do
not find that the Appellants have either by words or by conduct,
30
consented to the assignment of the 1986 agreement in favour of
Respondent Nos. 1.
The mere fact that the original owner Mr. Naranbhai Patel
signed the development permissions for the suit property and
may have been present at the Bhoomi Pujan does not indicate
that he consented to assignment of the 1986 agreement. The
1986 agreement stipulated that the original owners would give
their signatures for obtaining necessary permissions for the
proposed development on the suit property. Hence, as the trial
court has rightly noted, Mr. Naranbhai Patel was only carrying out
his contractual obligation as he had promised to the original
vendees. This does not indicate that he was under the impression
that the said permissions were now to be obtained for the benefit
of Respondent Nos. 1.
It is pertinent to note that Respondent Nos. 1 conceded
before the trial court that the Appellants had given their
signatures on the layout plan for the housing scheme on the suit
property to the original vendees, not to Respondent Nos. 1. Even
the advertisement regarding the ‘Unnati Park’ housing scheme
31
nowhere indicates that the Appellants/original owners were
developing the project on the suit property in partnership with
Respondent Nos. 1.
Thus we conclude that there was no valid assignment of
rights flowing from the 1986 agreement to Respondent Nos. 1,
and they cannot seek specific performance against the
Appellants.
IV. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to Specific
Performance?
15. Having found that Respondent Nos. 1 cannot seek specific
performance of the 1986 agreement, it may be considered
whether they can seek any remedy qua the 1987 agreements as
against the Appellants and the original vendees. Since there is no
privity of contract between the Appellants and Respondent Nos. 1
there no longer remains any question of granting specific
performance as against the former.
16. Further, as noted above, the terms of the 1987 agreements
indicate that they are contingent contracts, as defined under
Section 31 of the Contract Act:
32
“31. “Contingent contract” defined.—A “contingent
contract” is a contract to do or not to do something, if
some event, collateral to such contract, does or does
not happen.”
Sections 32 and 35 further state that:
“32. Enforcement of contracts contingent on an
event happening.—Contingent contracts to do or not
to do anything if an uncertain future event happens,
cannot be enforced by law unless and until that event
has happened.”
“35. When contracts become void, which are
contingent on happening of specified event
within fixed time.—Contingent contracts to do or not
to do anything, if a specified uncertain event happens
within a fixed time, become void if, at the expiration of
the time fixed, such event has not happened, or if,
before the time fixed, such event becomes impossible.”
The 1987 agreements are clearly contingent contracts
inasmuch as they could only be enforced had the original vendees
obtained the right to get the sale deed executed, and taken
possession of the suit property as per the terms of the 1986
agreement. Once the 1986 agreement was cancelled by the
Appellants, the original vendees’ rights thereunder ceased to
exist.
33
17. Respondent Nos. 1 contend that the Power-of-Attorney dated
11.11.2001 (supra) in favour of Mr. Dhananjay Patel shows that
the 1986 agreement was not cancelled and that the original
vendees continued to retain their right to get the sale deed
executed in their favour. It was brought to our notice by the
Appellants that the aforesaid Power-of-Attorney was subsequently
cancelled by the original vendees on 6.6.2003, on the ground that
Mr. Dhananjay Patel had obtained the Power-of-Attorney through
misrepresentation. However, it is important to note that the
original vendees have stated in the aforesaid cancellation notice
that they have ‘joint ownership’ of the suit property. Therefore we
find some merit in the argument that the Appellants and the
original vendees are acting in collusion.
Nevertheless, regardless of what may be stated in the
Power-of-Attorney, it has to be seen whether the original vendees
have legally acquired any rights in the suit property. Respondent
Nos. 1 have admitted in their plaints that the Town Planning
Scheme was finalized prior to the 1986 agreement. Hence the
deadline stipulated under the 1986 agreement for payment of
34
remaining consideration by the original vendees, i.e., within three
months of finalization of the Scheme, has long since lapsed. Since
the original vendees never paid the remaining consideration
within the time specified in the 1986 agreement, their rights
thereunder never fructified.
Even assuming that the original vendees acquired some
interest in the suit property, the subsequent withdrawal of the
suit SCS No. 194/1988 shows that the original vendees do not
intend to enforce the 1986 agreement. The trial court has found
that though the suit property de jure vested with the concerned
government authority under the Town Planning Scheme, the de
facto possession of the property remains with the Appellants and
the original vendees have not taken possession thereof.
Furthermore, both the trial court and the learned District Judge
have on facts found that the original vendees have not shown any
readiness or willingness to pay the remaining consideration to the
Appellants. Hence since the original vendees have abandoned
their rights under the 1986 agreement, enforcement of the 1987
agreements has become virtually impossible and Respondent
35
Nos. 1 cannot seek specific performance of the latter.
Consequently the 1987 agreements are void and unenforceable
as provided under Sections 32 and 35 of the Contract Act.
18. It is relevant to note at this juncture that Respondent Nos. 1
have also pleaded that the Power-of-Attorney dated 11.11.2001
(supra) was executed in breach of the interim injunction order
issued by the trial court directing maintenance of status quo in
respect of the suit property. Hence they seek that action should
be taken against the Appellants and the original vendees under
Order XXXIX, Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for
breach of the injunction order. However, we are in agreement
with the trial court’s findings that the Plaintiffs’ application under
Order XXXIX was moved after a delay of three years and six
months, and the said delay has not been satisfactorily explained.
Hence the application is barred by laches. In any case, since the
original vendees have revoked the Power-of-Attorney, status-quo
has been restored, and the Plaintiffs’ cause of action no longer
exists. The Learned District Judge and the High Court in the
impugned judgement have affirmed the trial court’s reasoning on
36
this aspect, and we see no reason to overturn their concurrent
findings on this matter.
It was also re-iterated before us by Respondent Nos. 1 that
the original vendees were misled into withdrawing their suit SCS
No. 194/1988 and that the same should not be binding upon the
plaintiffs. However given that the withdrawal of the suit has
attained finality before this Court, and the Trial Court and the
High Court have concurrently found in the separate application
made by the plaintiffs in SCS No. 658/1988, by orders dated
24.1.2008 and 25.3.2008 supra (respectively), that the original
vendees cannot be compelled to continue their suit against their
desire, we are not inclined to interfere with the same.
V. Alternative Remedy to be given to the plaintiffs
19. Though we have found that on facts and law, Respondent
Nos. 1 are not entitled to specific performance of the 1986 and
1987 agreements, prima facie it does appear that the Appellants
and the original vendees have colluded to frustrate performance
of the 1987 agreements. The trial court had directed the original
vendees to reimburse earnest money of Rs. 5000 paid by
37
Respondent Nos. 1 towards each of the 1987 agreements with an
interest of 9% p.a. from 14.9.1987 till the date of realization. We
are in agreement with the aforesaid direction.
With regard to the appropriate remedy to be provided to
Respondent Nos. 1, it may also be pertinent to refer to Section 53
of the Contract Act, which provides that:
“53. Liability of party preventing event on which
the contract is to take effect.—When a contract
contains reciprocal promises, and one party to the
contract prevents the other from performing his
promise, the contract becomes voidable at the option of
the party so prevented: and he is entitled to
compensation from the other party for any loss which
he may sustain in consequence of the non-performance
of the contract.”
Therefore, since the original vendees seem to have
relinquished their rights in the 1986 agreement so as to frustrate
performance of the 1987 agreements, it would be just in these
circumstances to award compensation to the Plaintiffs for the loss
of opportunity and inconvenience suffered by them. Though no
remedy is available as against the Appellants on account of
absence of privity of contract, we consider it apposite to direct
the original vendees, that is, Respondent Nos. 3-11 in the four
38
appeals, to pay Rs. 1,80,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of the suits, as damages to the
Plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 in these appeals, as prayed for in
their pleadings. We also direct the High Court to expeditiously
release and remit back the consideration amount deposited by
Respondent Nos. 1 in lieu of specific performance.
20. Hence these appeals are partly allowed, and the impugned
judgement is set aside, in the aforesaid terms.
…..…………................................J.
(MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)
….…………………………...............J.
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
New Delhi;
November 25, 2019
39
