TMI Blog1930 (7) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow of Govindram Chaudhari. 4. The plaintiff assigned all her interest in the subject-matter of the suit and in the decree appealed against, to the respondents, whose names by order of the Court dated 7th October 1927, were substituted for that of the plaintiff, as respondents in the appeal. 5. The material facts are as follows: On 9th July 1914, Mt. Jankibai, the plaintiff, had agreed to buy from Seth Jiwandas and the latter had agreed to sell to the former a four annas four pies share of mauza Raisalpur, including sir and khudkast lands, with cultivating rights in the sir, for ₹ 46,100. Mt. Jankibai paid ₹ 5,000 as earnest-money, but being unable to raise the balance of the purchase-money, arranged with Seth Sobhagmal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present. 8. At the trial many issues were raised; most of them are not now material. The learned District Judge dismissed the suit. He came to the conclusion that the litigation was speculative and opposed to public policy; that it had been engineered by Seth Nanhelal, respondent 1, to get the defendants out of the village, as they were undercutting him by lending grain and money at lower rates than he did in the village. 9. With regard to thus ground, it is only necessary to say that it is not relied upon by the appellants in this appeal. 10. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, which allowed the appeal, and on 8th April 1926, made a decree in the plaintiff's favour as follows: The decree of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purchase a 4-anna 4-pie share of mauza Raisalpur, tahsil and District Hoshangabad, for ₹ 46,100, from Rai Bahadur Seth Jivandassji, son of Raja Gokuldassji, of Jubbulpore, and paid ₹ 5,000 as earnest money to the said Sath. But you could not arrange for the remaining amount and Sath Jivandassji would have recovered from you whatever damages there might have been, besides the earnest money. So you gave up, of your own accord, the earnest money and purchase rights in respect of the mauza and had the share of the village sold to me by Seth Jivandassji for ₹ 41,100 (in words, forty-one thousand and one hundred rupees). But I agree with you as follows: I will execute a sale deed in your favour in respect of the entire 4-anna 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt go to show, in their Lordships opinion, that the subject-matter of the agreements of 4th September 1914, between Mb. Jankibai and Sobhagmal was the same as the subject-matter of the sale dead of 25th August 1914. 18. As already stated, there is no doubt that by the said sale deed the cultivating rights in the sir land were conveyed to Sobhagmal, and their Lordships are of opinion that the true construction of the agreements of 4th September 1914, is that Sobhagmal agreed to transfer to Mt. Jankibai the cultivating rights in the sir land as well as the share in the village and the other matters specifically mentioned therein. It is to be noted that this opinion agrees with the construction placed upon the agreements by the learned Dist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the sir land, there was, in their Lordships' opinion, an implied covenant on his part to do all things necessary to effect such transfer, which would include an application to the Revenue Officer to sanction the transfer. 21. It is not necessary for their Lordships to decide whether in this case the application for sanction of transfer must succeed, but it is material to mention that no facts were brought to their Lordships' notice which would go to show that there was any reason why such sanction should not be granted. 22. In these circumstances their Lordships are of opinion that the appellate Court had jurisdiction under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act to make the decree against which the appeal is directed, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
