Important Point
U/s 21, specific Relief Act, Court has the power to award compensation for breach of contract instead of decreeing the suit for specific performance.

Judgment

Altamas Kabir, J. —

1.The special leave petition arises out of OS No.8198 of 1995 filed by the petitioner herein for specific performance of an Agreement for Sale dated 18th May, 1995, executed by the respondent No.1 in respect of the suit properties and for a direction upon the respondent to execute a sale deed in his favour and to deliver vacant possession of the suit land.

2.The case made out by the petitioner is that in view of the Agreement for Sale dated 21st February, 1995, executed by the respondent No.1 in his favour for a total consideration of Rs.4,30,000/-, he paid Rs.1,00,000/- in cash to the respondent No.1 as an advance towards the sale price when the said agreement was executed. Thereafter, several amounts were paid by the plaintiff to the respondent No.1 amounting to Rs.2,05,000/- in total. It was also mentioned in the plaint that the respondent No.1 had projected himself to be the owner of the suit property, being site No.18, in Survey No.51/3A situated at Byrasandra 35th Division of Bangalore, having purchased the same from one Prasanth M. Kumar, who is now the respondent No.2 in the present Special Leave Petition. The respondent No.1 assured the plaintiff that the suit property was free from all encumbrances and that the original sale deed executed by the respondent No.2 was with the Deputy Commissioner on account of under valuation. The respondent No.1 also assured the plaintiff that he would produce the original sale deed at the time of registration, together with the records from the Corporation after assessment to register the property, since registration could not be done without the said records.

3.According to the plaintiff, he believed and trusted the respondent No.1 and waited till the end of October 1995, by which date the respondent No.1 had assured the plaintiff that he would complete the sale transaction. The respondent No.1, however, did not make any effort to complete the sale transaction inspite of repeated requests made to him by the petitioner to that effect, though the petitioner was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract regarding payment of the balance of the sale price after deduction of the amount already advanced by him.

4.It is also the plaintiff’s case that only when he found that a compound wall was being constructed that he became suspicious of the motive of the respondent No.1 who, however, continued to assure him that the compound wall was being constructed only for the purpose of payment of tax and issuance of katha endorsement. The respondent No.1 once again assured the petitioner that he would complete the sale as soon as he was able to get the relevant record from the Corporation and the original sale deed executed in his favour from the Deputy Commissioner for Under Valuation.

5.However, the petitioner was surprised when he was served with a legal notice dated 17th November, 1995, indicating that the respondent No.1 had cancelled the Agreement for Sale which had been executed in his favour on 21st February, 1995. The petitioner, thereupon filed the suit for specific performance of the contract and for delivery of possession of the suit land to him, which was disposed of by granting the alternate relief of reimbursement of the monies advanced, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The Trial Court, however, declined to Order the execution of the said agreement in respect of the property on the ground that third party rights had intervened, as the respondent No.3 purchased the suit property without knowledge or notice of the prior sale agreement and was thus a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and was not affected by the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the doctrine of lis pendens.

6.The matter was carried to the High Court by way of RSA No.781 of 2004, wherein the submissions advanced before the Trial Court were reiterated. Agreeing with the findings of the Trial Court, the High Court came to