IMPORTANT POINT
Plaintiff s suit for specific performance should not have been dismissed by Courts below on ground of want of title but in the facts of the case plaintiff can be compensated only by a decree of compensation in lieu of specific performance.

Headnote:Specific Relief Act, 1963-Section 20-Decree for specific performance-Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Section 14(1)-Property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property-Whether respondent Angammal had any pre-existing right of maintenance to which she came into possession of the suit land and whether she was entitled to the benefit u/s. 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956-(Yes to both)-To what relief plaintiff is entitled?-The plaintiff is directed to have refund of advance with interest in lieu of specific performance-Appeal allowed accordingly modifying judgment and decree under challenge.
       Held : As Angammal has come into possession of the suit land by virtue of pre-existing right of maintenance out of the estate of her late husband, the present case is covered by sub-section (1) of Section 14 and therefore after coming into force of the Act she became full owner over the suit land and as a full owner she had power to execute the agreement for sale dated 13.2.1975 - Ex.B-1 in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff could enforce this agreement of sale, which he did by filing the present suit. In view of the above position the suit should not have been dismissed by the courts below on the ground of want of title in Angammal. Accordingly, we hold that both the High Court and the trial court erred in law in rejecting the claim of the plaintiff and consequently the judgment of the trial court and the impugned judgment of the High Court to that extent are set aside. (Para 19)
       Held however : Defendant Nos. 3-6 purchased this suit land on February 21, 1975 and they are in possession of suit land by investing a considerable sum for improvement. On these facts, we are of the opinion that a decree for specific relief of the contract would involve hardship on the purchasers-defendant Nos. 3-6 and no hardship would be caused to the plaintiff and he can be compensated by a decree of compensation. We are also of the view that it will also be inequitable, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, to enforce specific performance of the agreement, Ex. B-1. (Para 23)
       Held : At the time of execution of the agreement for sale, the plaintiff paid an advance of Rs. 3,000/-. We are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be met if we direct the defendant Nos. 3-6 to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- to the plaintiff together with interest @ 12% from the date of the filing of the suit, i.e. March 14, 1975 till the date of payment. Accordingly, we modify the judgment and the decree under challenge. In the result, the appeal is allowed by modifying the impugned judgments and decrees. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- with interest @ 12% from 14.3.1975 till the date of payment in lieu of specific performance. Defendants shall pay the amount within a period of six months from today. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. (Paras 24 & 25)

JUDGMENT

Phukan, J.-The appellant in this appeal has impugned the judgment dated 5.3.1991 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in AS No. 951 of 1977.

2. The facts, which are necessary for our purpose, are summarized as below. The parties would be referred to as arrayed in the suit:-

3. The suit land originally belonged to one Alagirisami Chettiar, who was said to have died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. His son, Arimuthu died in September, 1940. Angammal, defendant No.1 is the third wife of Arimuthu and Gowrammal was the daughter of Arimuthu through his deceased second wife. Gowrammal was married to one Subramania Chettiar. Gowrammal died in April 1953 and Subramania died in July 1971. Their son, Dhanapal, is the only surviving legal heir of Alagirisami.

4. On 17.10.1937 Alagirisamy executed a settlement deed (Ex.A-1) in favour of his wife Nagammal, daughter Maruthammal and his son Arimuthu Chetty wherein it was provided that the settles would get the properties absolutely after his lifetime. The properties were described as self-acquired properties of Alagiriswamy excepting a small building. This document was cancelled by the deed dated 13.06.1945 (Ex.A-3) as all the settles died by that time. As stated above Arimuthu died leaving his third wife Angammal and his daughter Gowrammal through his deceased second wife. On 11.09.1940 i.e. three days after the death of Arimuthu, Alagirisamy executed a document (receipt, Ex.A-6) in favour of Angammal, pursuant to the decision by the Panchayat, in token of having received a sum of Rs. 1200-2-0 and textile goods worth Rs. 278-4-0 from Angammal, which she received from her late husband and agreed to execute a settlement deed in her favour. Alagirisamy agreed to pay interest of Rs. 60/- per year to Angammal, failing which the above amount of Rs. 1478-6-0 would be returned as and when demanded by the Panchayat. However, on 17.10.1940, a deed of settlement (Ex.A-2) was executed between Alagirisamy, his wife and daughter-in-law, Angammal, providing for payment of Rs. 5/- per month to Angammal with a charge over the properties including the suit land of Alagiriswamy. It was also provided in the deed that in case of default Angammal would be entitled to take possession of the properties. The possession was not taken by Angammal as there was no default in payment. On 13.06.1945, Alagirisamy executed a separate settlement deed (Ex.A-4) in favour of Gowrammal, his grand-daughter and her husband Subramania creating a life interest in their favour over his properties which included the suit land with a direction that during his life time and during life time of Gowrammal and Subramania the properties should not be alienated and after their life time the properties would go to their male issue and failing which to female issue. There was a provision in the deed directing the settlees to make monthly payment of Rs. 2-8-0 to Angammal as maintenance and the balance amount of maintenance of Rs. 2-8-0 was to be paid by Marimuthu Chetty, son of the sister of Alagirisamy by a separate settlement deed (Ex.B-29) which was executed by Alagirisamy. On the 21st January, 1946 a maintenance settlement deed (Ex.A-5) was executed by Subramania and Gowrammal and their minor daughter Selvarani in favour of Angammal. This deed was also executed as per direction of the Panchayat as the earlier maintenance allowance given to Angammal was not sufficient. By this deed only limited interest was created in favour of Angammal and during her life time she was given the right to enjoy the income from the properties (suit land) without any power of alienation and after her life time the properties would revert back to the settlers. On 8.05.1974 Dhanapal executed an agreement for sale (Ex.B-24) in respect of suit properties in favour of defendant No. 4 claiming himself to be the absolute owner. Subsequently, on 13.02.1975 a sale agreement (Ex.B-1) for the suit land wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 273

IMPORTANT POINTPlaintiff s suit for specific performance should not have been dismissed by Courts below on ground of want of title but in the facts of the case plaintiff can be compensated only by a decree of compensation in lieu of specific performance.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
Plaintiff s suit for specific performance should not have been dismissed by Courts below on ground of want of title but in the facts of the case plaintiff can be compensated only by a decree of compensation in lieu of specific performance.