Centre vs Smt. Neeta Devi"
2022 Latest Caselaw 1501 UK

                      Office Notes,
                   reports, orders or
SL.                 proceedings or
         Date                                        COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                   directions and
                   Registrar's order
                    with Signatures
      17.05.2022                        SA No. 97 of 2021
                                        Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.

This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2021, passed by the Additional District Judge, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal in Civil Appeal No.11 of 2019, "Hans Cultural Centre vs. Smt. Neeta Devi", whereby the appeal has been dismissed. The said first appeal was filed against the dismissal of the Original Suit No.32 of 2018.

2. Heard Mr. F.K. Jha, learned counsel for the appellant.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent had voluntarily offered to sell the property-in- dispute to the appellant society and orally requested the appellant to take over the possession of the said land for the construction of the hospital. The respondent had relinquished her right of the land in the year, 2010. After the said offer, the appellant had constructed a hospital. The hospital was constructed on the four acre land including one Nali of the land of the respondent. Thereafter, Rs. 1,31,100/- was paid by the appellant to the respondent as consideration of the said land. As promised by the appellant, the appellant had provided basic training for her elder son, who had completed his B. Pharma and he (the son of the respondent) has been provided employment in the hospital of the appellant. Now, the respondent has demanded Rs.15,00,000/- and a constructed house. The respondent was requested at least four times for registration of sale-deed, but every time, she refused on one or other pretext. The Hospital has become functional since 14.04.2013.

4. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the absence of a registered agreement, the oral and un- registered agreement can also be received in evidence.

5. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "S. Kaladevi vs. V.R. Somasundaram and Others, (2010) 5 SCC 401" and a judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in "Kundan Singh vs. Shri Pustimargiya Tritya Peeth, RLW 2007 (3) 1851".

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, this Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

(I)Whether the learned courts below ought to have held that appellant society had performed their part of contract and is still ready and willing to perform its part of contract?

(ii)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for specific performance of contract is barred under the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws and Amendment Act, 1976.

7. Issue notice to the respondent.

8. Steps to be taken within a week.

9. List this case on 24.06.2022.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, both the parties are restrained to create any third party interest over the property-in-dispute till the next date of listing.

(Alok Kumar Verma, J.) 17.05.2022 Pant/