Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 -- Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 20 -- Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870), Section 7(iv)(a) -- Suit for specific performance – Rejection of plaint -- Subsequent vendee filed counter claim for possession – Advalorem court fee – Requirement of – Suit for possession of land where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the Collector's register as separately assessed permanently to such revenue, then the amount of court fee shall be computed on 10 times of the revenue so payable -- Accordingly for the relief of possession the claimant was required to pay advalorem court fee on 10 times of the land revenue of the suit land -- Term “land” is not defined anywhere in the Court Fees Act -- It should, therefore, be incorporated in the ordinary sense and cover all kinds of land regardless of the use to which it is put or may be likely to be put – Application for rejection of plaint rightly dismissed.

(Para 11-13)

A. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 10, 34 -- Agreement to sell immovable property -- Plaintiff did not perform his part of contract – Termination of Contract by Seller – Suit for Specific performance of agreement by Purchaser – Maintainability of suit -- Plaintiff has not sought for declaratory relief to declare the termination of Agreement of Sale as bad in law -- In the absence of such prayer by the plaintiff the original suit filed by him for grant of decree for specific performance in respect of the suit property on the basis of Agreement of Sale and consequential relief of decree for permanent injunction is not maintainable in law.

(Para 16,17,28)

B. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 20(1)(2) -- Agreement to sell immovable property – Time – Value of -- Suit for Specific performance of agreement by Purchaser – In a case of sale of immovable property, time is not the essence of the contract – However, if the parties agreed to a specified time in the agreement to perform their part of the contract, then time is the essence of the contract and parties shall adhere to the same -- Plaintiff did not pay the remaining consideration amount within the stipulated period of 7 months as agreed -- Date of the institution of the original suit was nearly 11 months after expiry of the limitation period stipulated in the agreement to get the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff – In respect of readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff, the court should have exercised its discretionary power under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act -- Plaintiff is entitled to compensation as agreed upon by him under the Agreement of Sale -- Grant of the decree for specific performance by the High Court is wholly unsustainable in law.

(Para 16,18-20, 27,28)

C. Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 16(c), 20(1)(2), 21(2) – Agreement to sell immovable property – Consideration – Ready and willingness -- Plaintiff had not produced any document to show that he had the balance sale consideration amount to pay to the defendants to get the sale deed executed in his favour -- Further, there is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff could have made arrangement for payment of the balance consideration amount to them -- Court must take into consideration the conduct of the plaintiff prior and subsequent to the filing of the original suit along with other attending circumstances and further the amount of consideration which he has to pay to the defendants must be proved by the plaintiff -- Plaintiff in a suit for specific performance must be ready and willing to carry out his part of the agreement at all material times – Plaintiff is not entitled for the decree of specific performance in respect of the suit schedule property.

(Para 21-25,28)

A. Indian Easement Act, 1882 (V of 1882), Section 52 – License – Licensee – Defendants are occupying the disputed premises on the basis of permission granted by its owners, who are the real brothers or their legal representatives, without any condition to pay any rent – Since there is no lease nor any rent deed, it is nothing more than a license, which means to give a license or permit a person to occupy when the land owner allows to do work or perform an act on the land owner’s property – Visitor has a license to enter into the property – This kind of license need not be written, signed and registered – It may be oral or it may be implied by the relationship or actions of the parties.

(Para 7)

B. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 2 – Ex-parte Decree – Compromise Decree – Decree after contest – Binding effect -- A decree of a Court of law either passed after contest or passed without contest or passed ex-parte or passed on the basis of compromise or any other form is a decree, which is, by all means, binding on all the Courts.

(Para 10)

C. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Section 2 – Compromise decree – Change of Presiding officer – Effect of -- Trial Court declared the said decree as void and non-est and is not binding upon the court -- This is obviously perverse, as the decree has been passed by the same Court -- Though, the Presiding Officer might have been changed, yet 'Court' means 'Court' and not the Presiding Officer -- In either case, the said decree was passed by a co-ordinate Bench, which has not been challenged anywhere, nor even in present suit, thus, it has attained finality.

(Para 10)

D. Indian Easement Act, 1882 (V of 1882), Section 52 – Licensee – Compromise decree – Non-registration of – Objection to -- A licensee has no right to claim that any memorandum of understanding of family settlement among the owners was not registered, and the suit filed on the basis of it earlier, was not maintainable, in which the defendants were not parties nor their right or title has been affected by that decree.

(Para 12)