IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Rise in the price of an immovable property by itself is not a ground for refusal to enforce a lawful agreement of sale.
2. A document, as is well known, must be read in its entirety. The intention of the parties, it is equally well settled, must be gathered from the document itself. All parts of the deed must be read in their entirety so as to ascertain the nature thereof.

Headnote:Specific Relief Act, 1963—Section 20—Suit for specific performance—Scope of discretionary jurisdiction u/s 20—Rise in price of an immovable property by itself is not a ground for refusal to enforce a lawful agreement of sale—Original relationship of parties as landlord and tenant—Appellant, owner of residential house had taken loan from respondent who has been in possession of suit property as a tenant on a monthly rent—Parties entered into an agreement for sale—Sum of Rs. 15,000/- received by appellant as loan was treated to be the amount of advance paid out of the amount of consideration fixed in the agreement of sale—Although a period of five years was fixed for execution of sale deed on payment of balance sum, appellant has received a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- from respondent—However, appellant making attempts to sell the property to third parties, respondent filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale—Suit decreed by Trial Judge and also by High Court—Appeal filed alleging that it is not a fit case where the Courts below should have exercised their discretionary jurisdiction u/s 20 of the Act—Whether concurrent findings of courts below are liable to be interfered with—(No)—Agreement of sale was entered between parties, meant to be acted upon.
       Held : Original relationship of the parties as landlord and tenant is not in dispute. The fact that the appellant intended to convey his right, title and interest in respect of the said property is also not in dispute. As noticed hereinbefore, he entered into more than one agreement in respect of the self-same property and took advances in respect thereof from more than one person.(Para 10)
       The agreement in question has been described as an agreement for sale. Appellant admittedly was owner of the property. The agreement shows that there had been negotiations between the parties as a result whereof the respondent herein had offered to buy and the appellant had agreed to sell the said property for a sum of Rs.45,000/-. The terms and conditions stipulated therein were arrived at as a result of the negotiations between the parties.(Para 11)
       The agreement has been held to have been executed by the parties in support whereof large number of witnesses had been examined. The High Court, in particular in its judgment, has categorically opined that when the respondents served a notice upon the appellant on 29.05.1981, it was expected of the appellant to raise a contention that the said agreement was a sham one or nominal one and was not meant to be acted upon but it was not done.Failure on the part of the appellant to do so would give rise to an inference that the plea raised in the suit was an afterthought.(Para 17)
       We have noticed hereinbefore that the appellant had entered into an agreement for sale with others also. He had, even after 11.5.1979, received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the respondent. He with a view to defeat the lawful claim of Respondent No. 1 had raised a plea of having executed a prior agreement for sale in respect of self-same property in favour of his son-in-law who had never claimed any right thereunder or filed a suit for specific performance of contract. The Courts below have categorically arrived at a finding that the said contention of the appellant was not acceptable. Rise in the price of an immovable property by itself is not a ground for refusal to enforce a lawful agreement of sale.(Para 19)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—Defendant No. 1 in the suit is Appellant before us. He was admittedly owner of a residential house admeasuring 40 ft. x 30 ft. bearing No. 148 (New Plot No. 78), 8th Cross, N.R. Colony, Bangalore. Respondent No. 1 has been in possession of the suit property as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 115/-. The appellant admittedly had taken loan from Respondent No. 1 herein from time to time, the details whereof are as under :

“23.4.79Rs. 8000

27.4.79Rs. 4000

10.5.79Rs. 2900

11.5.79Rs.100”

2. Admittedly, the parties entered into an agreement for sale on 11.05.1979. The aforementioned sum of Rs. 15,000/- received by the appellant was treated to be the amount of advance paid out of the amount of consideration fixed in the said agreement of sale i.e. Rs. 45,000/-. The relevant terms of the said agreement are as under :

“Whereas the first party is the absolute owner of house bearing No. 148, 8th cross N.R. Colony, Bangalore-19 more fully described in the schedule hereunder, having acquired the same under registered gift deed, executed by Mrs. B.N. Vijaya Deva.

Whereas the second party has offered to buy and the first party has agreed to sell to the second party the schedule property for a sum of Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees fourty five thousand only.)

The first party hereby agreed to sell the schedule property to the second party on the following terms and conditions.

a)A sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) has been paid this day by the second party to the first party which he hereby acknowledges out of the said price of Rupees Forty Five thousand.

b)A further sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in respect of the balance of the price shall be paid by the second party to the first party within one year from this date, i.e., 11-5-79.

c)The remaining balance of the consideration for the sale, i.e., Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) shall be paid by the second party to the first party within five years from this date.

On payment of the full consideration of Rs. 45,000/- to the first party by the second party in the manner aforesaid the first party shall execute a registered deed of sale in favour of the second party conveying the schedule property to the second party. The expenses for conveyance for stamp and registration shall be borne by the second party only but the first party shall apply to the competent authorities for permission to sell the property to the second party and take other steps necessary for the purpose.

xxxxxxxxx

The first party shall notify the tenants in the property of the fact of sale at the time the sale deed is executed in the manner mentioned above and call upon them to vacate the property and render all assistance and help to the second party to obtain in vacant possession of the schedule property.

In case the first party shall commit breach of the agreement, he shall, besides refunding the sum he has received under this agreement, to the second party, shall in addition pay a sum of rupees ten thousand as damages. In case the second party commits breach of this agreement she shall forfeit a sum of Rs. ten thousand out of the amounts paid.”

3. Although a period of five years was fixed for execution of the sale deed on payment of the balance sum, admittedly, the appellant herein has received a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- from Respondent No. 1.

4. It is furthermore not in dispute that the respondents served a notice upon the appellant on or before 29.5.1981 alleging that he had been making attempts to sell the property to third parties.

5. Appellant was called upon to execute a registered deed of sale on receipt of the balance amount and as he did not agree thereto, the respondent No. 1 filed a suit for specific performance of the said agreement of sale dated 11.05.1979.

6. The said suit was decreed by the learned Trial Judge by a judgment and decree dated 05.04.1989. A first appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 206

Cases Referred (3)