2010 (7) Supreme 171
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Kammana Sambamurthy (D) By LRs. — Appellants
versus
Kalipatnapu Atchutamma (D) & Ors. — Repondents
Civil Appeal No. 6088 of 2003
with
Civil Appeal No. 7265 of 2003
Decided on : 8-10-2010
(b) Specific Relied Act, 1963 – Section 12 – Vendor not being absolute owner of the property and there being no express or implied authority by the wife in favour of her husband Vendee cannot claim specific performance in respect of wife’s half share in the property. (Para 18)
(c) Specific Relied Act, 1963 – Section 12 – Section 12 prohibits specific performance of a part of a contract except in the circumstances under sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) – Vendor agreeing to sell the property in its entirety, but subsequently discovered to be owner of only half of the property – The agreement is binding on the vendor for his share. (Para 21)
(1990) 3 SCC 517; (1999) 7 SCC 703; (2000) 10 SCC 636 – Relied upon
(2004) 6 SCC 537 – Distinguished
(d) Partition Act, 1893 – Section 4 – Comes into play after execution of sale deed – Vendee can apply for partition after execution of sale deed in his favour. (Para 26)
(1996) 11 SCC 446; (2005) 5 SCC 492; (2005) 10 SCC 728 – Referred
Facts of the case:
1. On February 19, 1984, the vendor entered into an agreement of sale with the vendee in respect of a tiled house consisting of six rooms, verandah, three mulgis upstair portion consisting of one room, hall and verandah inclusive of entire area pertaining to the house along with the entire vacant site situate for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was paid in advance. The vendor in the agreement represented that he was absolute owner of the property.
2. On March 24, 1984, the vendor’s wife sent a notice to the vendee as well as vendor calling upon them to cancel the agreement as she held half share in the property having devolved upon her on the death of her son as she was not willing to sell her share and was ready to purchase the share of the vendor.
3. On April 21, 1984, the vendor informed the vendee that he was unable to execute sale deed in the vendee’s favour and he may take back sum of Rs. 10,000/- that was paid in advance.
4. The vendee then filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement against the vendor and his wife.
5. The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit
6. The High Court modified the judgment and decree
Finding of the Court:
There is o infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGEMENT
R.M. Lodha, J. —
The original contesting parties are dead. They are now represented by their legal representatives. This is not unusual when litigation goes on for more than 25 years.
2. These two appeals, one by the legal representatives of Kammana Sambamurthy (original plaintiff) and the other by legal representatives of Kalipatnapu Atchutamma (original defendant no. 2) are directed against the judgment and decree dated December 23, 2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad. The High Court modified the judgment and decree dated July 2, 1991 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Anakapalli in a suit for specific performance of the contract. The husband of defendant no. 2 - Kalipatnapu Kamaraju - was original defendant no. 1; he is also dead. For convenience, we shall refer to the original plaintiff, ‘the vendee’; the original defendant no. 1, ‘the vendor’ and the original defendant no. 2, ‘the vendor’s wife’. The facts, as we find them, are shortly as follow.
3. On February 19, 1984, the vendor entered into an agreement of sale (for short, ‘the agreement’) with the vendee in respect of a tiled house consisting of six rooms, verandah, three mulgis upstair portion consisting of one room, hall and verandah inclusive of entire area pertaining to the house along with the entire vacant site situate in door no. 9.118 bearing assessment 116 at village Payakaraopet, District Visakhapatnam (for short, ‘the property’) for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The vendee paid Rs. 10,000/- in advance and the remaining consideration of Rs. 90,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. The vendor in the agreement represented that he was absolute owner of the property. The agreement reads as follows :
“ SALE AGREEMENT DATED 19-2-1984 Absolute Sale Agreement for Rs. 100000/- (Rupees one lakh) in respect of the immovable property i.e. tiled house, building upon the tiled house inclusive of entire vacant site pertaining to the house got executed and delivered on 19-2-84 in favour of Kommana Samba Murthy S/o Kommana Adaiah r/o Namavaran Village, Nekkapalli Tq. Visakhapatnam District.
By Kalipatanapu Kamaraju s/o Kalipatnapu Suryanarayana r/o Payakaraopet Village, Ditto Tq. Ditto District is as follows :-
II. As regards the property mentioned in para no. III in schedule hereunder wherein I have possessed absolute right and enjoyment and which fell to my share in the partition effected in respect of immovable property with my brothers about forty years back and ever since has been in my possession and enjoyment and situated in southern row of G.N.T. road of Payakaraopet village i.e. the tiled house, six rooms, verandah, 3 mulgis upstair portion consisting of one room, hall and verandah inclusive of entire area pertaining to the house along with the entire vacant site there of belonging to me. I have settled to sell the same to you for the reason that I attained old age and did not have any male children and with intention to spend my rest of life with any one of my daughters and thinking that it is better to augment the cash balances as you offered today higher price, then I agreed there to and settled to sell the property to you. Having regard for a sale consideration of Rs. 100000/- (Rupees one lakh only) this agreement of sale has been executed and delivered to you. Out of the sale consideration you have paid Rs. 10000/- as advance in the presence of undersigned witnesses at the time of execution of this sale agreement and the same was received by me. Therefore starting from this date you are requested to pay by 20-6-84 the balance sale consideration of Rs. 90000/- payable to me and shall get the sale deed executed as per your plan on your name or the name chosen by you on a proper stamp paper and shall get the same registered and delivered to you at your expense. Having assured you to the effect that excepting me, none have got any right over this property and having
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.