 So it is not relative to Article 300 A of the Indian Constitution. Now, in an agreement which is consisting of both affirmative and negative governance, yes, after that, after my session is over, you can post your question one by one, then I will answer. Now let me finish the lecture given to me. Suppose an agreement consisting of two parts. One is in affirmative, another one is negative. When the negative part can be enforced by the court of law, that is the point. Part is affirmative, what is negative? Suppose an agreement was entered into, it's an illustration, I will give my answer subsequently. An agreement was entered into between an employer and his employee, stating that the employee should work with the employer for a period of five years. And during the currency of the agreement, he cannot quit the job and he cannot work with other employer or competing employer. This is the agreement. This agreement is consisting of two parts. One is to work with the employer for a period of five years, condition number one. This is affirmative in nature. Second one, negative agreement not to work with any competing employer. You should not work with the other company. The point is the employee left the company and joined the company, competing company. Now can the employer file a suit for specific performance? He is coupling his employee to work with his company for a period of five years. This is point number one. Suppose he don't want the employee to work with him for a period of five years. Can the employer file a suit for injunction for the enforcement of the negative covenant directing the employee not to work with other company for a period of five years. This is illustration. He just keep it in mind and I will answer this question one by one. So when an agreement is containing both affirmative and negative part, normally the court cannot enforce the negative part of the agreement straight away. This was the law prior to 1852. But first time the King's Court in England changed the view. The King's Court could not enforce the positive part of the agreement. So it is a personal service. The court cannot compel the employee to work with him because if there is a breach, damages is the adequate remedy. So when the adequate remedy is available, the court normally refuse to grant a degree post specific performance. So the positive part cannot be enforced. When the court could not enforce the positive part of the agreement, but still it could enforce the negative part of the agreement. This is the first time the law was lie down by the King's Court. Loomley versus Wagner 1852, 1, DEGM and G page 604. This is the first case on the subject. For the enforcement of negative governance. When the court is not in your position to grant a relief of specific performance, for the enforcement of the positive part of the agreement, it could grant a degree for permanent injunction for the enforcement of the negative governance. Now, next question is, normally a suit for specific performance must be filed for the enforcement of the positive part of the agreement. When the court comes to a conclusion that for other reasons, the court is reluctant or not in a position or not inclined to grant a relief of specific performance, it may grant other relief which is prayed for. So when the court comes to a conclusion that the positive part cannot be enforced, then it could grant a degree for permanent injunction for the enforcement of the negative governance. Now, here the point is whether a suit for enforcement of negative governance is maintainable in the absence of the prayer for the specific performance of the positive part. So a suit for specific performance must be filed for the enforcement of the positive agreement. When the court comes to a conclusion that it is not possible to grant such a relief, then only the court is entitled to grant the relief for the enforcement of the negative governance that is the law. But our Delhi High Court, in Frank Simo's Advertising Private Limited versus Sada Leasing Industries Limited, because you can post the citations in the chat box, here 1988 Delhi page 302. Mr. Vikas, not connected, okay. Here 1988 Delhi page 302. I'll ask Vikas to post the citations later and you can note down the cost item, what is name. Then here there our Delhi High Court said a suit for enforcement of negative governance is maintainable even in the absence of prayer for the specific performance of the positive part of the agreement. Now, in a suit for enforcement of negative governance, in whose burden it is, who has to prove? The burden of proof is on the person who pleads that there is no negative governance, they either express or in fact. The famous case in this field is Gujarat Bottling Company Limited versus Coca-Cola and others. This is here. Legal battle between Coca-Cola and Pepsi. It is reported in 1995 by SCC page 445. 1995 SCC page 445. Gujarat Bottling Company Limited versus Coca-Cola. In this case, the Coca-Cola Company entered into an agreement with the Gujarat Bottling Company They have to supply the syrups, they have to bottle it, fill it up and distribute the same agreement. Another condition is the shares in the Gujarat Bottling Company cannot be transferred without the consent of the Coca-Cola. Another condition is that the agreement is for a period of one year. During the period of one year, the Gujarat Bottling Company cannot fill the syrups of Pepsi or other competing company. So this is negative in nature. So the Gujarat Bottling Company cannot bottle, fill it up and sell it and distribute the same to the other competing company. Now Pepsi acquired the major shares in the Gujarat Bottling Company and after the acquisition of the shares in the Gujarat Bottling Company, the agreement issued notice to terminate the agreement. So irked by that Coca-Cola Company instituted suits before the Bombay High Court and filed an interlocked application for various relief and including the relief of enforcement of the negative covenant, restining Gujarat Bottling Company from bottling, filling, selling the Pepsi syrups. And that injunction was granted and it was challenged before the division bench of Bombay High Court has also upholded the order passed by the single judge of the Honourable High Court. Then the Gujarat Bottling Company filed SLP before the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, it was argued that the negative covenant in the agreement is against the doctrine of restrain in trade, violating section 27 of the Indian contract act. So under section 27 of the Indian contract act, an agreement to restrain any trade calling or proportion is void. So the negative covenant, the negative path in the agreement, restaining Gujarat Bottling Company from carrying on their business with the other company is void as per section 27 of the Indian contract. For that, our Honourable Supreme Court has said, partial restraint of trade might be good if reasonable and it is not against the spirit of section 27 of the Indian contract act. You entered into an agreement agreeing to do service to Coca-Cola for a period of one year and during the currency of the one year, you have also agreed with your manifest and unequivocal intention not to do the same business with other company. So there is a breach on your part. Normally, when an application is taken out under order 39, rule 1 and 2 of CPC for injunction, view the petitioner who is seeking an order of injunction has to satisfy the triple test. The triple test is prima facie case, balance of convenience and if the injunction is not granted, injunction is not granted, it would cause irreparable injury to the petitioner. Prima facie case, balance of convenience irreparable injury is the triple points to be satisfied before getting an order of injunction. But our Supreme Court in the first time has also pointed out, no doubt the petitioner seeking an order of injunction must establish all these things, prima facie case, balance of convenience and if injunction is not granted, it would cause immense loss and fortune. But at the same time, the person who is opposing the grant of injunction, that is the opponent, that is the respondent, he must be fair and honest. The conduct of the respondent must be fair and conduct. Here, as against the agreement without the knowledge of the Coca-Cola company, Gujarat bottling company transferred major portion of the shares in power of Pepsi, that is the bridge number one. Second one, the agreement was terminated not by Coca-Cola, it was terminated by Gujarat bottling company. Third one is, there is an agreement, negative agreement, not to fill the syrups of Pepsi during the currency of the one year. So the bridge is only on the part of the Gujarat bottling company. So the order passed by the division branch of the Bombay High Court does not require any influence. At this stage, past argument was advanced on the side of Gujarat bottling company that if the injunction is granted, restining the Gujarat bottling company from caring and business and then the company would become ideal. There are more than 500 employees and 5000 employees and 500 officers and their flight has to be taken into consideration. Repelling such argument, the Supreme Court said the fault is on your part. The court has already said the negative covenant is not against section 27 of the contract act and the negative agreement, negative covenant can be enforced to meet all the ends of justice. So finally, the Supreme Court upheld the order passed by the division branch of the Bombay High Court. Then another case, normally the court has to consider before granting an order of injunction whether the plaintive has made out a prima basic case, whether the balance of convenience lies in favor of the plaintive. If the injunction has prayed for it's not granted, whether it would cause immense loss and irreparable injury to the plaintive petitioner that has to be taken into consideration. But in a suit for enforcement of negative covenant, first time the England court said the concept of balance of convenience under the damages being adequate remedy become less important. Become less important. If the suit is for the enforcement of positive part of the agreement then all those prima basic case balance of convenience, irreparable injury will be taken into consideration. In the case for the enforcement of the negative covenant, it become less important. 1878-3 appealed cases 709. This has been followed by the Calcutta High Court in the case reported in IR 1996 Calcutta page 67. Vijay Mineral's private limited process Vikas Chandra Day. IR 1996 Calcutta page 67. In the case it is relating to the delivery of manganese work for a period of 5 years and there is a negative agreement and the court has held for the grant of injunction for the enforcement of negative covenant, the balance of convenience is less important and the argument was advanced. Suppose he can get the compensation for the damages. Normally when the court is able to assess adequate compensation for the breach then the court will be reluctant to grant the relief of specific performance. Here the court is not going to grant the relief of specific performance. The court is going to grant a degree for permanent injunction for the enforcement of negative covenant. So that is why the court said the balance of convenience and the adequate damages is the adequate remedy become less important. And in another case I think it has not been reported but we please take it out. Suresh Danuka versus Sunita Maha Patra Supreme Court. In this case our Supreme Court has held section 42. Before that I would like to emphasize one point. The defences available against the grant of injunction section 41 when injunction can be refused. Some grounds are stated in section 41 A to J. So these are all the grounds to refuse to grant a degree for injunction. Under section 41 E of the specific relief act, injunction cannot be granted to prevent the breach of a contract the performance of which could not be specifically enforced. When the court cannot grant a degree for the performance of when the court comes to a conclusion degree for specific performance cannot be granted. Equally it cannot grant a degree for injunction to prevent the breach of a contract. But section 42 in its opening sentence notwithstanding section 41 E of the specific relief act. So section 42 is an exception to section 41 E. It contains non-upstanding class. Even though specific performance cannot be enforced still the court has got power to grant the relief for the enforcement of negative covenant. So in this case the Supreme Court has held section 42 is an exception to section 41 E and it is not violating section 27 of the Indian contract act. And another case, this is not reported, image advertising and another, this is Delhi High Court. In this case an agreement was entered into the plaintiff and defendant to display the holding and the neon sign in the place belonging to the defendant for a period of five years. And there is a negative agreement apart that during the currency of the five years the defendant respondent company shall not allow other parties holding and display. Dispute arose, suit has been filed for specific performance and also for enforcement of negative covenant. In that case, in that case the judgment of Supreme Court reported in AR 1967 Supreme Court page 1098 pass refer. In this case this is NS Golic Curry versus Century Spending Company Limited. 1967 Supreme Court page 1098. In this case the Supreme Court tested the agreement between the employer and employee. At my introduction I have illustrated that an agreement was entered into between the employer and employee. The agreement contains that the employee should work with the employer for a period of five years and during the currency of the five years he cannot leave and work with other company. Whether such a class is against is against the doctrine of restraint of trade. The court said no doubt this agreement contains two parts. One is affirmative part that is directing the employee to work with the company for a period of five years. This is not against the doctrine of restraint of trade for problem. But restraining the employee from working with other company is against the doctrine of restraint of trade. So this is relating to personal service. This has been argued before the Supreme Court. This has been argued before the Delhi High Court. And by citing other judgments of Supreme Court, Delhi High Court pointed out the employer-employee agreement is mainly relating to the personal service. It cannot be equated with the other commercial contracts, other commercial contracts. No doubt in this agreement of employer and employee, the aggrieved employer is entitled to file suit for damages or get compensation and he cannot restrict the employee from carrying on any other business from working with other company. But that agreement cannot be equated, cannot be put on par with the other commercial contracts. Here there is an agreement to permit the plaintiff to display coding and a neon sign in the place earmarked by the defender belonging to him. And before displaying the coding and neon sign, it requires license from the municipality, corporation. The corporation will grant license only the owner of the property gives his no objection. No objection was not given by the owner. So the prior petitioner is not in a position to get license. This is due to the non-cooperation on the part of the respondent because the respondent fails to give his no objection. And he is attempting to invite other parties to erect coding and a neon sign in the place. So a suit for injunction for enforcement of negative governance was filed. So though the court cannot enforce the specific performance, erecting the respondent for the specific performance of the agreement that is to allow the petitioner to erect his coding and a neon sign. But still in as much as the agreement contains the negative part, the court is not powerless. The court is omnipotent. The court has got premier of powers to grant the relief of injunction for the enforcement of negative governance. Ultimately the suit was decreed. And another case, GVK airport holding. GVK airport holdings limited versus BIT service division. This Delhi High Court ordered dated 17 2019. GVK airport holding limited and BIT services division. In this case, the Mumbai airport is being operated by GVK company. And the major shares in the Mumbai international airport limited. It was held by BIT service division. There is an agreement between the GVK company and the BIT service division that as and when the BIT service division is intending to transfer its shares the first priority must be given to GVK company. In other words, the GVK company has a right of first rate, first to refusal. If the GVK is not willing to buy the transfer then it can sell it in favor of any departments. So the right of first to refusal is given to GVK company. Because preemptive right is given to GVK company to purchase the shares of the BIT service division. Namely the shares of Mumbai international airport limited. The BIT service division wanted to transfer their shares in favor of some third parties. Aggravated by the decision of the BIT service division, GVK company filed a suit and they have invoked the arbitration class and they have also filed an application before the Bombay High Court, the Delhi High Court for various relief including the relief of enforcement of negative conduct. In this case, first time Delhi High Court invoked the principles of readiness and willingness before granting the relief of negative conduct. Normally in your suit by specific performance, the preemptive must establish that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of conduct from when the disappoints. In your suit by specific performance, it is imperative. It is incumbent on the part of the plaintiff to show that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract from the day one that is from the date of execution of the agreement. The moment the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the vendor, he must establish that he is always ready and willing that having sufficient financial resources to pay off the balance sell price and his conduct is unblemished. This is 2013-15 SCC page 27. I have taken the debt by LR versus K Subramani. There is no quarrel about it. Yes, the plaintiff has to establish that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract from the day one. And also, the plaintiff must prove his readiness and willingness. Now, the specific relief has been amended in 2018. Here, you need not aware that you are ready and willing that part is deleted. But the plaintiff must prove that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Only on proof of his readiness and willingness, a degree for specific performance can be granted. So, the prerequisite for the grant of specific performance is to satisfy the court that the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Part is the term readiness. Part, it means the phraseology readiness and willingness. Readiness means the phraseology it refers to the financial capacity or financial resources of the plaintiff to purchase the property from the defender. But he must possess sufficient fund to purchase the property, namely to pay off the balance sale consideration. So, he must prove that he is having sufficient funds to purchase the property, that is readiness. The willingness is a term referable to the conduct of the plaintiff. The conduct of the plaintiff has to be scrutinized along with the attendant circumstances. Part is the date of the agreement. Part is the period given to the plaintiff to perform his part of contract. Whether during the currency of the period, whether within the stipulated period, whether the plaintiff has performed his part of obligation, whether he has issued any notice calling upon the vendor to receive the balance sale consideration and the executive sale it in his favor. These are all the conduct and the attending circumstances on the part of the plaintiff to show his willingness. So, both of the terms readiness and willingness are inseparable having nexus with each other. So, the key point to be proved before the court to get a degree for specific performance is the plaintiff's readiness and willingness and his, he has to prove. But in the instant case, the GWK company though instituted the preferred matter to an arbitrator and filed an application before the Delhi High Court has not at all alleged that they are having, but because the shares is worth is running to several crores, several crores. They have not alleged anything that they are having, they are financially sound and able to mobilize funds to purchase the shares. So, frustrated by this, even though the GWK company has got a right of refusal, preemptive right, but in as much as they have failed to prove their financial capacity to purchase the property, it is not desirable to grant the relief of injunction for the enforcement of negative command and restraining the BIT service division to transfer their share in favor of any third parties. So, ultimately the application filed by the GWK company was dismissed. So, what has to be, this is proviso to section 42, section 42 of the specific relief act and the proviso says provided that the plaintiff has not failed to perform the contract so far as it is binding on him. So, the judgment of the Supreme Court is on this point, there is no breach on the part of the bank. So, he must establish his legal right and he must establish that he has performed this part of application and his conduct is worthy and unblemished. So, in the absence of proof of readiness and willingness on the part of the petitioner, he cannot get an order of injunction for the enforcement of negative command in an agreement, in the agreement. So, this is very famous case, GWK airport holding limited company case. And another one, Indian charge chrome limited versus Tata iron and steel company limited 1996 one Kolkata law time page 214. In this case, whether the negative part must be expressed in the agreement or it can be inferred by necessary implication or it can be implied. In this case, the Tata iron and steel company limited entered an agreement with the Indian charge chrome limited for the delivery of chrome and coke. In the agreement, there is a clause which says the disco has to make available the entire quantity of chrome ore and coke mentioned in the agreement. This is the positive. But the court has held that negative command and positive part in the agreement necessarily implies a negative command and that the disco shall not cease to make available the above quantities of chrome ore and coke on regular basis. So, the court held even in the absence of express negative command in an agreement, it can be inferred by necessary implication that there is a negative command and then there is no problem for the court to enforce a negative command. 1996 one Kolkata law times page 214. And the court further went on saying it is well settled that in each case, the court should examine the substance of the agreement and not its form to ascertain whether there is a negative command. At this juncture, I would like to remember, normally the parties are entered into agreement in the form of lease or something in the form of license. The confusion will arise whether it is a lease deed or a license deed. Often the advocates are perplexed whether it is a deed of lease or deed of license. What is the difference? If it is a lease deed, there is a transfer of interest in the immobile property to enjoy the property for a particular period. Section 105 of transfer of property act. If in this case of a license, as per section 52 of the Indian Eastman, license is only a mere right to do something in or upon the property of other party particular. So, in the case of lease, even after the expiry of the lease period, if the let's see continues to be in possession of the property, he is entered to get an order of injection. Because he was put into, he was entered into possession of the property as a let's see for a particular period and he noticed a previous issue and he can only be evicted in the manner bound to. But in the case of license, it ceased the moment the period mentioned the license period expires. Automatically it will be revoked. So, after the expiry of the license period, the licensee cannot get an order of injection, even after the expiry of the license period. That is the law. But sometimes, lease will be granted, but the deed says it is a lease. The conclusion will arise. I will give some example for license. If any license is given to catch a fish in your pond, this is only a license. What was given to you to catch a fish? You cannot claim any exclusive possession over the pond. When there is a multi-storied building, the entire key is with the owner and in one part you are allowed to do certain business. It's only a license. It is only a license. So, licensee should depend upon the will of the licensee to carry out this business. And right to vend prasadam in a temple. It is not a lease even though any place is segregated to vend prasadam in a temple. It is not a lease because once the temple is closed, the licensee cannot carry on its business. This is a license. So, after the period of license, automatically it will come to an end. The licensee has no right to seek an order of injection against the licensee. But in the case of, let's see, it is not. So, the test to ascertain whether it is a lease or license is known as litmus test. The assigned student might aware, but what is litmus? Litmus test. So, what is important? Not the nomenclature of a particular dogma. What is the substance? So, the Kolkata High Court has also helped. Even in the absence of express negative covenant by necessary implication, it can be inferred that there is an implied negative covenant under those circumstances it can be enforced. That is the dictum tied by the Kolkata High Court in the case reported in Indian charge chrome limiter versus Tata iron and steel company limiter. So, with this citation, I am concluding my session on the enforcement of positive and negative part of the agreement. I have shared the judgments. I have reshared the entire set of judgments, though we had separately also made it. I have shared the judgments which you have done separately as well as in a joint form. You have done the both. And you have also shared your answers to the questions which we had. And now we have Adilakshmi ma'am. Your popularity can be shown that Adilakshmi ma'am also had to be kept in a waiting list. Just like in the railway train, we have a reservation against cancellation. Thank you. Thank you, my dear brother Vikas, for inviting me and also the Leaky Leaky Salite and of course our beloved and most respected Shankar Murli sir. Whenever we call him, he is there to us to explain anything on the civil jurisprudence, he is an authority and encyclopedia. We are so happy that South and North is connecting time and again and Vikas is doing a wonderful job almost pan India and international level people are getting connected to him. It's a really wonderful session. Thank you Shankar Murli sir. Your session was very excellent and almost everyone got connected. What mistake I did was I was posting the link to everyone failing to connect myself in. So the whole team got connected. I was left out. Without the captain, the ships started sailing because our captain Mr. Shankar Murli sir and Vikas was there. So it is really wonderful but I was connected with your Facebook and I was listening to the session throughout from the beginning. Even I couldn't connect the 100 participant. I was immediately on the Facebook and the YouTube. It is very useful, very nice session. Excellent one. Thank you so much. Thank you. We are very happy and this COVID-19 situation and the lockdowns and all the vacation is going to be very productive on both the platforms of Leaky Leaky Salite and the Beyond Law CLC. Thank you so much and we will be getting connected time and again and bringing in more faculties down south. Thank you. Thank you so much. Is there any questions in the chat box and I will answer. Before going with the question, I am telling that what we did those question answers which we had taken in the first five questions. We have divided into the YouTube. That question has been created as a separate YouTube and this session has been created as a separate session on the YouTube. This is by Chandrasekhar whether a suit based on premature agreement is maintainable. Sir, whether a suit on the basis of premature agreement is maintainable. Can you post it in the chat box? I will do that. I will pass them to post it in the chat box. I have posted it. To the first time. The question is from Anil Kumar Taghi. Whether a suit based on premature agreement is maintainable kindly unlike a premature agreement is not maintainable. Because there must be some corresponding duties on the part of the, suppose in Mandar in the case of sale agreement, Mandar and Wendy. Premature agreement, suppose the class says this agreement will take effect on particular font. Even prior to that if any suit is filed then the suit is premature. The suit on premature agreement is not maintainable. If any case is given then I can enlighten further. Next one. Any other questions posted in the chat box? No sir, none. I will just check it on the YouTube. Yes, yes. Cancelation of a development agreement of a builder not willing to cancel the five years, not starting the work. What to do? It's not on the chat box, it's on the YouTube. Is it the chat box? No, it's on the YouTube. It says there's a builder and he's not building the property and neither cancelling the agreement. What can be done? What is the question? Please repeat. The builder has not built the building and he's not willing to cancel the agreement also. Then it is open to the owner of the site to terminate the agreement and the suit against the builder for compensation. Read section 15 of the specific impact in this aspect. Agreement has to be terminated or the owner of the site is willing to engage the very same engineer, builder. He can choose a specific performance directing the builder to put up the construction as per the specification. He's not willing, he can terminate the agreement and he can sue for damages. This is the last question he says. No, this is a separate question. Yes, kindly explain general damages and special damages. General damages and special damages. It's an ocean. I have to cover section 72 of the Indian contract act and special damages and general damages. Just I will give one illustration. I hope that it will be useful to understand. Suppose you enter an agreement with a builder. You are the owner of the site. You enter an agreement with a builder to put up house as per the specification attached to the agreement. The rates are specified like this. As in the earlier case, the builder refused to perform his part of obligation. He has not put up the construction as per the specification. And he left the work in the office. Then the owner can terminate agreement and he can sue for damages against a builder. He can claim damages on two divisions. One is general. Another one is special. General on account of the breach on the part of the builder, he has suffered mental loss. Mental agony. For your mental agony and mental loss, you cannot assess the exact value. So it can be tentatively valued according to your living standard. General, special damages and the work was not done. He left the construction work in the office and the owner has to engage some other builder to put up the further construction. And the cost, the variation between the earlier agreement and the second one, it comes under the special damages. He is entitled to get the special damages from the builder who has breached the agreement. Last version, a separate lecture is required to enlighten this aspect. What are all comes within the purview of general damages and the special damages. Special damages is the actual loss incurred by the party affected. General damages is loss of reputation and compensation for the mental sufferings. Deepak, can license, licensee be dispossessed of the premises once the leave license agreement is expired by calling the police? Can licensee be dispossessed of the premises once the leave license agreement is expired by calling the police authorities? Yes, the leave and license agreement is mainly entered into between the mobile companies to erect a tower on the private building. It's only a license. As I said earlier, license can be revoked after the expiry of the license period. It is automatic, need not be revoked. After the expiry of the license period, automatically the license will be revoked, it get revoked. Now, the question is whether the licensee be dispossessed of the premises once leave and license agreement is expired. You need not go to the police station. If you are able to dispossess the licensee with the help of your friends, you can do it. The licensee cannot file a suit and he cannot lodge a police complaint provided in the decent manner he must be dispossessed. Suppose leave and license is given, you can disconnect to the electricity, you can close the door and you still are a law abiding citizen. We can go to the police station, lodge a complaint stating that I have given only license for a period of one year or two years as the case may be and the period is expired. The lawyer is not leaving the place and please help us to evict them. But normally this is civil nature, police will be very reluctant and I think if any other point is available, I will do some homework. Whether it will lie against the police to dispossess the licensee who is illegally occupying the premises after the expiry of the licensee period. But under law, licensee has no authority to remain in possession and endowment of the property after the expiry of the licensee period. That is the law, that is section 52 of the Indian easement act. But one exception is that suppose the licensee has made some improvement and made some improvement by way of erecting semi permanent structure then the licensee is irrevocable after the expiry of the licensee period. It is irrevocable provided there must be some permanent structure must be put up by the licensee. It is a special privilege, license is a special privilege. I have argued the case before the Madras High Court, Madurai branch that is also reported. I don't know the citations, in 2016, 6 MLA I think so. I have argued what is the dismiss test, how to distinguish the lease from license, what is the remedy available to the licensee. He is still in possession and endowment of the property after the expiry of the licensee period. In that case, my client has given license to run your restaurant in the Tamil Nadu tourism department in the place owned by the Tamil Nadu tourism department. After the expiry of the licensee period, they came and closed the door. So we get filed the suit. Initially we got the entry model, subsequently it was vacated. The matter went to up to High Court. In the High Court said, no, no, no, you are only a licensee. What the licensee hit that is to close the door is perfect. You can remove all your articles and leave the possession to the licensee. We can't help. So if it is a license, after the expiry of the licensee period, licensee has no right to remain in possession of the property. He can be evicted, but in the manner known to law. The manner known to law doesn't mean that you have to file a suit for eviction against the licensee that is not at all necessary. Because law does not recognize the licensee's right to remain in possession of the property after the expiry of the licensee period. What is the limitation in case for rectification of instrument? A suit maintainable after 20 years of the death of the executor of the deed. Second last question. Rectification of instrument. Three years. One second, one second. Yes. The build of limitation. If any fraud or mistake is committed. Section 26 are specifically packed. When through fraud or mutual mistake of the parties, a contract or other instrument in writing does not express the real intention, then either of the parties representative in interest may institute a suit to have the instrument rectified. So what is the field of limitation? Limitation act article does not say. Normally the suit to set aside instrument is three years from the date of execution of the instrument. That is also normally applicable to rectification of deed. But any fraud is pleaded. Section 17 of the limitation act says. When fraud is pleaded. From the date of knowledge of the fraud, the period of limitation is one year from the date of knowledge of the fraud. When the plaintiff noticed that the fraud has been committed while executing this instrument, so he can sue for rectification or setting aside instrument. The suit may be filed after the 20 years of the death of the executor provided when he came to know the fraud committed by the other party. Section 17 of the limitation act. The next question can be taken up. Yes. Agreement of sales is executed between one and purchaser for sale of land. And purchaser has to pay within three months' violent sale consideration. But owner is supposed to survey by official surveyor of underlaw office and then only purchaser would purchase. But owner did not do survey in three months. Now six months elapsed and the owner is trying to sell to third parties. Notice is issued restaining owner not to sell. Purchaser said he is ready and willing to purchase provided he does survey. What suit is to be filed? A suit for specific performance is must. In addition to that, you can pray for mandate injunction directing the owner to survey the property with assets of a qualified surveyor. Under section 21 of the specific lip ad, section 22, in addition to the relief of specific performance, we can ask for and mandate injunction directing the owner to survey the property in your absence with the assistance of a qualified surveyor. Suppose another point, another dispute will arise. Suppose your agreement says that the property agreed to be conveyed is one acre of land. But only after the survey, if it is found that the property measures only 75 cents, three and half acre, three by four acre. And what is the remedy? We are not remedy less. Section 12 of the specific lip ad, a degree for specific performance in part can be granted. Even though the agreement is in respect of one acre, you can ask for specific performance in respect of 75 cents and you are entitled to proportionately reduce the sale price. You have to file a super specific performance. Without filing a super specific performance, if you file a suit to survey the property before filing the super specific performance, that is not maintainable. In addition to the super specific performance, you can also pray for mandate injunction for survey. I have posted a last question. Yes. Just check it out. Very interesting question. The state are executed a will to his wife for life after then to his son, but son died before his mother death. What is the position of the deceased son legal gas? So the legality died. Legality died. That is the beneficiary died. The legality died before the other. So no one is there to get the property. So the will is slapsed. If it is slapsed, the general rule of succession will apply. So the test data is deemed to be died interstate, even though he has executed it. So he is deemed to be died interstate. So his class one legal guy is sent to get the property. The wife being the wife estate holder is the class one legal guy. He sent it to get the property absolutely. The last question is the state are executed a will in his in favor of his wife for life interest. After that it was to go to answer this question. No, but that wants to transfer the share to her during her lifetime. What is the position of law? Mother wants to transfer the share during his lifetime to the son. Last question. Should I read it? Sir, this is my first question. Mother cannot transfer his life interest according to section 6. Somebody has posted what about section 14 under the Hindu succession act? Once life estate is given, he cannot transfer, assign, relinquish, release. He can't do. That is my first problem. Question number one. Another question is, a debtor sold out the property after piling the suit for recovery of the money by creditor with an intention to make delay the debtor has not other properties except that what is the remedy? Yes, very good question. Take section 53 of the transfer of property act. If the debtor transfers the property with an intention to cheat and defraud the creditor, then such a transfer is a fraudulent transfer. You can file your suit to set aside the fraudulent transfer and recover the amount by attaching the set property. Last question. For feature of deposit for non-performance of contract. Is this in nature of compensation for non-performance? This section 23 of the specific relief act. Suppose the agreement contemplates a feature of advanced amount in the case of non-performance. So, non-performance, a particular sum is quantified as compensation for non-performance of contract. In the case of non-performance. So, non-performance, a particular sum is quantified as compensation, namely the advanced sum. The point is, can the vendor perfect the advanced amount or account of the non-performance on the part of the purchase? This is number question number one. But section 23 says the for-feature class is for the compiling the purchaser to perform his part of contract, that the for-feature class is inserted, then the court has got power to grant a specific performance, degree for specific performance, if the suit is filed by the purchaser for specific performance. If the specific performance, in addition to that, we can also claim damages. But here, non-performance on the part of the purchaser. Purchaser can terminate the agreement. Purchaser can terminate the agreement. As per the class in the agreement, he is entitled to perfect the deposit amount. Then he has to keep silent. Then the suit will be filed either for the specific performance or for the return of the advance amount. Then the vendor has to make a defense that he has quantified the amount as damages. So I am rightly perfected that amount. He need not file any suit. He can simply perfect that amount and keep silent. And if any suit is filed, he can take it as a defense. What is the limitation to file suit at the section 53 of the TPA Act? 53 of the TPA Act. When you came to know the fraudulent transfer, within a period of three years. Okay. So thank you, sir, for giving your insights. If Adhiraakshmi is there, then we can… Because G, the next lecture onwards, I have to work hard because our participants are very brilliant, posting questions after questions. I am unable to answer those questions. I have to work hard. I have to read more. I have to enrich myself. I have to enlighten myself. I have to read again and again. The participants are very brilliant. Everybody is learning in that process. And you are able to answer it. It shows the volume of knowledge you have. Yes. Adhiraakshmi Ma'am has to unmute. Yeah. Yes, Vikas. Thank you. Thank you for calling in. So excellent, sir. Shankar Muli, sir. You know answers for everything, sir. Whatever question it's, shoot up. You just come up with the brilliant answers. And of course, Vikas, you're doing a wonderful job. You're bringing in so many new topics and so many excellent legal luminaries as speakers. And it is excellent to listen to your topic and day in and day out. And tomorrow also, someone from south is doing a session. They had asked me to post it in Legal Legal Salite. So even though I don't... Yes, yes. I have got a request from his junior or someone today. Evening that the posters has to go on our Legal Legal Salite platform. We are really eager to do it. And it's a pleasure to get your connection to you. Thank you, Shankar Muli, sir. Thank you so much. And special thanks to his junior, Haritha, who does everything, helping all, getting all the... Today he's not with me. He's writing an LLM exam. He said to... Sir, you have your daughter by your side to support, sir. He's also on the online examination. Yes, sir. We are all there to support, sir. The Legal Legal Salite family is all with you and beyond our CLC, sir. Thank you so much, sir. Thank you, Vikas. And thank you, every one of you, for joining in. Thanks to the Legal Legal Salite team for joining a new member. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, Vikasji. Thank you. Thank you for the day. Before we part for the day, tomorrow's session is Admissibility of Documents, Marking and Exhibition by K. Prabhakar, an advocate from Madurai High Court. So do stay connected with us at tomorrow 5.30 p.m. And one of the sessions, like we had with Mr. Shingar Murli, Mr. Mukanta is taking a very simple, making the definitions under the Transfer of Property Act. Next week he's coming. Definitions of Transfer of Property Act. Very simple. So do stay connected with us and everyone stay safe, stay blessed, keep on wearing your masks, maintain social distancing. And those who have not done the vaccination kindly do the same. And stay safe, stay home. And we will keep on sharing the legal knowledge. But at the same time, you shouldn't go outside the home. You all know that reaching the Lakshman Rekha, what can be the result. Everyone stay safe. Thank you. And thank you to Mr. Murli and to all those participants who have been watching us live on the Facebook, YouTube and on this platform. And for the participants, they might feel that why there are two YouTube uploads of this particular session. We have divided the first five questions into one particular session that's already uploaded. And this session separately, wherein we took section 42 and there on, that has also been uploaded separately. So those who want to look into those five questions have to watch that YouTube channel, uploading separately and this one separately. Thank you. Thank you, sir, for sharing your knowledge. And thank you, Adilakshmi ma'am. I'm the entire team of legal legal rights. Thank you.