Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)Section 20 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Kalyanpur Lime Works Ltd vs State Of Bihar And Another on 14 December, 1953
Rule 8 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that where a contract is alleged in any pleading, a bare denial of the same by the opposite party shall be construed only as a denial in fact of the express contract alleged or of the matters of fact from which the same may be implied and not as a denial of the legality or sufficiency in law of such contract. Rule 2 of Order 8 requires that the defendant must raise by ins pleadings all matters which show the suit not to be maintainable, or that the transaction was either void or voidable in point of law, and all such grounds of defence as, if not raised, would be likely to take the opposite party by surprise, or would raise issues of fact not arising out of the plaint, as for instance, fraud, limitation, release, payment, performance, or facts showing illegality. These provisions leave no doubt that the party denying merely the factum of the contract and not alleging its unenforceability in law must be held bound by the pleadings and be precluded from raising the legality or validity of the contract. (See Kalyanpur Lime Works v. State of Bihar, AIR 1954 SC 165). As indicated above the defendants in the present case did not plead the grounds challenging the enforceability in law of the said contract. It is, therefore, not open to them at this stage to contend that as the plaintiff had not specifically pleaded that the contract was for the benefit of the minor the contract is unenforceable.
Section 53A in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Mir Sarwarjan vs Fakharuddin Mahomed Chowdhury on 24 August, 1906
The latter decision of the Privy Council in Subrahmanyan's case must be taken to have overruled all decisions made on the basis of Mir Sarwarjan's case. The doctrine of mutuality has, however, lost its vigour because of the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which provides that the court shall not refuse to any party specific performance of a contract merely on the ground that the contract is not enforceable at the instance of the other party. The true test, therefore, for the validity and enforceability of a contract by a minor's guardian is not the existence of, mutuality but the competence of the guardian and legal necessity or benefit to the minor or ins estate. If a contract by a competent guardian of a Hindu minor for sale or purchase is for necessity or for the benefit of the minor it would be valid and enforceable. The court would, however, not be deprived of its discretionary power to refuse to enforce the agreement if the supervening circumstances affect the interests of the minor and the circumstances are changed to ins detriment at the time the contract is sought to be enforced.
Section 9 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Sri Kakulam Subrahmanyam vs Kurra Subba Rao on 26 February, 1948
It appears that in Bholanath's case 1964 All LJ 494 = (AIR 1964 All 527) (supra) the later decision of the Privy Council in Subrahmanyan's case (supra) was not brought to the notice of the court. The agreement of sale in that case was entered into on 4th March, 1948, and the suit was filed in 1951 much before the enforcement of the Specific Relief Act of 1963. In the present case the agreement of sale was entered into on 20fh March, 1967, and the suit for specific performance thereof was filed in 1968. The Specific Relief Act, 1963 came into force on 1st March 1964, Hence the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 were clearly applicable to the said agreement of sale. That being so, in view of the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the specific performance of the agreement cannot be refused merely)
on the ground that the contract is not enforceable at the instance of the other party.
Bholanath vs Balbhadra Prasad And Ors. on 26 February, 1964
It appears that in Bholanath's case 1964 All LJ 494 = (AIR 1964 All 527) (supra) the later decision of the Privy Council in Subrahmanyan's case (supra) was not brought to the notice of the court. The agreement of sale in that case was entered into on 4th March, 1948, and the suit was filed in 1951 much before the enforcement of the Specific Relief Act of 1963. In the present case the agreement of sale was entered into on 20fh March, 1967, and the suit for specific performance thereof was filed in 1968. The Specific Relief Act, 1963 came into force on 1st March 1964, Hence the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 were clearly applicable to the said agreement of sale. That being so, in view of the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the specific performance of the agreement cannot be refused merely)
on the ground that the contract is not enforceable at the instance of the other party.
1