Pritam Singh Vs. Paramjit Kaur - Court Judgment |
| Property |
| Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Sep-25-1996 |
| Regular Second Appeal No. 1382 of 1996 |
| G.C. Garg, J. |
| (1997)115PLR231 |
| Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 38 and 41 |
| Pritam Singh |
| Paramjit Kaur |
| Vinod K. Kataria, Adv. |
| H.S. Kathuria, Adv. |
| Appeal allowed |
| and Sunil Kumar and Anr. v. Ram Parkash
|
.....if state enters into a contract in consonance with article 299 rights of the parties shall be determined by terms of such contract irrespective of fact that one of the parties to it is a state or a statutory authority. for these precise reasons the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel has been made applicable against the government, as against any other private individual, even in cases where no valid contract in terms of article 299 was entered into between the parties. hence, if government makes a representation or a promise and an individual alters his position by acting upon such promise, the government may be required to make good that promise and shall not be allowed to fall back upon the formal defect in the contract, though subject to well known limitations like larger public interest. the state, thus, has no dominus status to dictate unilateral terms and conditions when it enters into contract and its actions must be reasonable, fair and just and in consonance with rule of law. as a necessary corollary thereto state cannot refuse to confirm highest bid without assigning any valid reason and/or by giving erratic, irrational or irrelevant reasons. -- consumer..........alienating the suit properties, which are owned by him. he in support of his submission placed strong reliance on jujhar v. giani tarlok singh, (1987-1)91 p.l.r. 399 and sunil kumar and anr. v. ram parkash, (1988-2)94 p.l.r. 159 (s.c). mr. kathuria, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has not been able to bring to my notice any fact which may persuade me to take a different view. learned counsel had ultimately to concede that the land in dispute is owned by the appellant and plaintiff has no share therein either on account of purchase or inheritance. after hearing learned counsel for the parties, i am of the opinion that the suit as framed by the plaintiff-respondent was not competent. she could only file the suit, if at all, after alienation takes place and not for injuncting the owner of the property to effect sale thereof. this appeal is accordingly allowed, judgment and decree under appeal is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed with no order as to costs.
G.C. Garg, J.
1. Paramjit Kaur filed a suit against the defendant, her father, for permanent injunction restraining him from alienating the suit land in any manner without any legal necessity or to suffer any collusive decree on the ground that the defendant had assured her that he will give l/3rd property to her at the time of her marriage. The trial Court by judgment and decree dated 16.2.1994 decreed the suit and restrained the defendant from alienating l/4th share belonging to the plaintiff or to suffer a collusive decree. Appeal there-against was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge by judgment and decree dated 8.2.1996. It is against this decree of the Courts below that the present appeal has been preferred.
2. Learned counsel for the defendant-appellant submitted that a daughter has no right to seek an injunction against her father restraining him from alienating the suit properties, which are owned by him. He in support of his submission placed strong reliance on Jujhar v. Giani Tarlok Singh, (1987-1)91 P.L.R. 399 and Sunil Kumar and Anr. v. Ram Parkash, (1988-2)94 P.L.R. 159 (S.C). Mr. Kathuria, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has not been able to bring to my notice any fact which may persuade me to take a different view. Learned counsel had ultimately to concede that the land in dispute is owned by the appellant and plaintiff has no share therein either on account of purchase or inheritance. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the suit as framed by the plaintiff-respondent was not competent. She could only file the suit, if at all, after alienation takes place and not for injuncting the owner of the property to effect sale thereof. This appeal is accordingly allowed, judgment and decree under appeal is set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed with no order as to costs.