1972 (12) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...."Chandrapuri Colony". The case of the plaintiffs who on behalf of the various purchasers of the sub plots, brought the present suit under Order 1, Rule 8 of the CPC is that a representation was made to them that plot No, 19 will be reserved for being used in common as a Dharmshala and yet it was sold to one Manohari Devi who in turn sold it to the defendant. The defendant constructed a boundary wall around the plot, rendering impossible the use of the plot for common benefit. Plaintiffs therefore asked for a declaration that plot No. 19 was earmarked for a Dharmshala, for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the construction of a Dharmshala and for possession of the plot after demolition of the boundary wal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....useful aids in propagation of views or dissemination of information, they have not yet acquired notoriety carriers of binding representations. Promises held out over loudspeakers are often claptraps of politics. In the Instant case, the announcement, was if at all, a puffing up of property put up for sale. 6. It would appear that in the maps which were annexed to some of the sale-deeds, plot No. 19 was described as "Dharmshala". But, in the context, that circumstance cannot be construed as containing a representation that the particular plot will in perpetuity remain unbuilt upon. It was on September 21,1946 that the plot was sold to Manohari Devi. And yet, maps annexed to subsequent sale-deeds described the plot as "Dharmshala". The tra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....efront before us contending that the co-owners were estopped from disputing the right of the plaintiffs to ask that plot No. 19 shall remain reserved for the use of a Dharmshala. There is no merit in this contention. Evidence regarding the representation is vague and true facts were known to those who purchased the sub-plots after plot No. 19 was sold to Manohari Devi in 1946. Besides, estoppel is but a rule of evidence and except in cases like those under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, when a grant is fed by estoppel, the rule does not operate to create interest in property regarding which the representation is made. Accordingly, plaintiff cannot claim that possession of plot No. 19 be given to them so as to enable them to con....