S. V. Mathaprasad vs Lalchand Meghraj

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2007 Supreme(SC) 416

2007(3) Supreme 159
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
C.K. Thakker and H.S. Bedi, JJ.
S.V. Mathaprasad—Appellant
versus
Lalchand Meghraj & Ors.—Respondents
Civil Appeal No.. 1576 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 12237-12239/2004)
Decided on 26-3-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Anoop G. Choudhari and Ms. June Choudhari, Sr. Advocates, Devendra Singh and D. Bharathi Reddy, Advocates.
For the Respondents : K. Ramamoorty, Sr. Advocate, A. Sashidharan, V. Balaji and A.T.M. Sampath, Advocates.

Headnote:Specific Relief Act, 1963—Specific performance of agreement of re-conveyance—`RM, owner of suit property executed two sale deeds—Agreement between parties that in case the purchase amounts constituting the sale deeds were repaid within three years, properties would be re-conveyed on payment of 10% in addition to the sale price—`RM and his son, appellant filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of re-conveyance—Suit decreed—On appeal, High Court set aside the decree—`RM alone filed Special Leave Petition—Death of `RM and defendant—Appellant and LRs of ‘RM assigned all their rights, including the right to obtain reconveyance of suit properties by executing documents in favour of respondents, assignees—Suit for specific performance decreed by the Supreme Court—Appellant filed execution petition ignoring assignees as well as LRs of original owner—Assignees filed application for being impleaded as parties in Execution petition—Applications dismissed by Single Judge by his order dated 3-7-2000—Direction made for delivery of possession and execution of deeds of re-conveyance in favour of appellant alone—Assignees filed application for setting aside the order and also for condonation of delay of 971 days delay in filing the applications—Applications dismissed solely on ground that they were barred by limitation—Whether Division Bench of the High Court was justified in holding that order of Single Bench was not sustainable—(Yes)—However, Division Bench was not justified in taking a decision on merits as well.
Held : The learned Single Judge had dismissed the applications by order dated 3.7.2000 wholly on the ground of limitation. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench has not only condoned the delay but taken a decision on merits as well. We are of the opinion that the second exercise was not justified as the only issue before the Division Bench was the question of limitation. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench to the extent that it goes on to the merits of the controversy but maintain it in so far that it deals with the question of limitation. Ipso facto the matters are restored to a re-hearing on merits. We accordingly remand the applications to the learned Single Judge for fresh decision with a request that in the background of the long pending litigation, the applications should, if possible, be taken up on a priority basis uninfluenced by any observations by the Division Bench of the High Court in the order dated 27.4.2004 or of this Court in these proceedings. We also observe that as we have dealt only with the question of limitation, it would be open to all the parties to the litigation, whether before us today or not, to raise all other pleas open to them in law.(Para 5)

JUDGMENT

Harjit Singh Bedi, J.—Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the following facts:

Ramakrishna Mudaliar, the owner of the suit property executed two sale deeds dated 26.3.1959 and 31.3.1959 in favour of Mrs. Rajaby Fathima Buhari, and as per an oral understanding between the two (which was subsequently reduced into writing under an agreement dated 24.3.1959) it was agreed that in case the purchase amounts constituting the sale deeds were repaid within three years, the properties would be re-conveyed on payment of 10% in addition to the sale price, etc. It appears that some time in May 1960 Mrs. Buhari, despite notice, failed to re-convey the suit property on which Ramakrishna Mudaliar and his son Matha Prasad, the present appellant, through his first wife filed Suit No. C.S. No. 43/1962 for specific performance of the agreement of re-conveyance dated 24.3.1959. The said suit was decreed on 10.11.1965 on which Mr. Buhari and Mrs. Buhari filed two appeals. A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeals by its judgment dated 13.5.1972 whereupon Ramakrishna Mudaliar alone preferred a Special Leave Petition to this Court. Leave was granted and the appeal was duly numbered as C.A. No.224/1974. Matha Prasad, who was also one of the plaintiffs in C.S. No. 43/1962, however, preferred no appeal. Mrs. Buhari and Ramakrishna Mudaliar both died some time in the years 1980/1982 on which their legal representatives were also brought on record in the various litigations which were then pending between them. Matha Prasad aforementioned and the legal representatives of Ramakrishna Mudaliar thereafter assigned all their rights, including the right to obtain re-conveyance of the suit properties by executing several registered documents in favour of Lalchand Meghraj and Chimandas Meghraj respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the “assignees”). The assignees filed I.A. No.1/1994 for being impleaded as parties in the appeal pending in the Supreme Court, but the Court while allowing the appeal, and decreeing the suit for specific performance, dismissed the I.A. as the appeal itself was being disposed of on merits. An application for a review of the order qua the I.A. was also dismissed on 1.11.1995. Matha Prasad thereafter filed Execution Petition No.48/1997 impleading the legal representatives of Mrs. Buhari and ignoring the assignees as also the other legal heirs of Ramakrishna Mudaliar. The assignees thereupon filed Application Nos. 2005-2006/1998 praying that they be impleaded as parties in the Execution Petition. The Master of the High Court in his order dated 19.4.1999 issued notice to the legal representatives of Ramakrishna Mudaliar and also directed Matha Prasad to take steps to serve them for 10.6.1999 and the applicant/assignees were also directed to file the assignment deeds executed by the legal representatives of Ramakrishna Mudaliar. Matha Prasad, however, filed Application Nos.1106-1108/2000 seeking a recall of the order of the Master dated 19.4.1999 and also a stay of the proceedings pending before him. The learned Single Judge in his order dated 3.7.2000 set aside the order dated 19.4.1999 and dismissed the applications. Pursuant to this order of the learned Single Judge, the Master by his order dated 7.7.2000 directed delivery of possession forthwith and the execution of the deeds of re-conveyance in favour of Matha Prasad alone within one month from the date of the order. The legal representatives of Ramakrishna Mudaliar thereupon filed Application Nos.2871-2873/2000 against the order of the Master dated 7.7.2000. The learned Single Judge of the High Court modified the order of the Master holding that the applicants as decree holders along with Matha Prasad were entitled to a re-conveyance of the property in dispute in respect of their share, if any, of the property but that was to be decided in separate proceedings. Matha Prasad filed an appeal against this order but a Division Bench dis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday