In this case, the land in Plot No. 765 in Mauza Bhaunjar, Ghaziabad, was divided into smaller plots by its co-owners as part of a residential housing scheme named “Chandrapuri Colony.” The plaintiffs, who were some of the people who bought these smaller plots, brought a legal suit claiming that Plot No. 19 was never meant to be sold because it was reserved for building a Dharmshala (a public rest house). However, they alleged that the plot was wrongly sold to a woman named Manohari Devi, who later sold it to the defendant.
The plaintiffs argued that the plot should be reclaimed from the defendant so that the Dharmshala could still be built, as originally intended. They also complained that the defendant had constructed a boundary wall around the plot and requested that it be demolished. They further wanted the court to prevent the defendant from interfering with the Dharmshala construction in the future.
As part of their argument, the plaintiffs said that when the housing project was first being promoted, announcements were made over loudspeakers that Plot No. 19 would be kept aside for the Dharmshala.
Issue before the Case
- The issue before the Court was whether an Offer made on the Loudspeaker is Valid and Enforceable.
Arguments in the case
The plaintiff, filed the suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). Their main argument was that they were promised that Plot No. 19 would be kept as a common space for a Dharamshala (a public rest house). However, they claim that this plot was later wrongly sold to the defendant. The plaintiff is asking the court to issue a permanent injunction to stop the defendant from interfering with the construction of the Dharamshala, and they also want possession of the plot by having the boundary wall removed.
On the other hand, the defendant completely denied that Plot No. 19 was ever meant to be used for a Dharamshala. The defendant argued that the plot had been legally sold to him by Manohar Devi, who, according to him, had full ownership rights over it. Therefore, he claimed he had every right to keep and use the plot.
Analysis of the Court
The Supreme Court found that Plot No. 19 had been sold to Manohari Devi through a registered sale deed way back in 1946. So, any buyers of nearby plots should have been aware that this plot wasn't restricted by any condition. Also, there were no maps attached to the sale deeds to support the claim that Plot No. 19 was meant for a Dharmshala. None of the sale deeds even mentioned such a map.
The plaintiffs argued that the co-owners were estopped (legally prevented) from denying their claim. However, the Court found that the evidence for such a representation was unclear, and the people who bought the surrounding plots knew the truth about the sale. The Court emphasized that estoppel, being a rule of evidence, doesn’t create property rights unless certain conditions like Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act apply.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court and ruled that the plaintiffs had no legal basis to file the case. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Concluding Remark
In brief, the Court held that unverified loudspeaker announcements do not create binding contracts. Since the plaintiffs relied on a vague and unconfirmed statement, their claim failed. Such announcements are not valid offers and have no legal force unless made with intent and followed by proper negotiation.
