Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.Y. Eqbal, Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ.
Inbasegaran and another – Appellants
Versus
S. Natarajan (Dead) thr. Lrs. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 4215-4216 OF 2007
S. Natarajan (Dead) thr. Lrs. – Appellants
Versus
Inbasegaran and another – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.4217-4218 OF 2007
S. Natarajan (Dead) thr. Lrs. – Appellants
Versus
Inbasegaran – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.4219 OF 2007
Decided on : 29.10.2014
(1964) 7 SCR 831; (1980) 1 SCC 290; AIR (36) 1949 Privy Council 78; (1995) 6 SCC 733; AIR (1970) SC 1059; (1977) 2 SCC 288 – Relied upon
(2013) 9 SCC 311 – Referred
(2013) 1 SCC 625 – Distinguished
(b) Administration of Justice – Binding precedence – Ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. (Para 30)
(2004) 8 SCC 579 – Relied upon
© Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 96 – High Court in first appeal formulating 6 issues but deciding only two – Being final court of fact, ought to have decided all issues framed by it – Matter needs to be remanded back. (Para 34)
Facts of the case:
A land was allotted to the defendant on lease-cum-sale agreement by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Since the defendant had not constructed building on the said site, the Board did not execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant. Hence, he entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff. In the said agreement, he agreed to sell the suit house site to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.3,84,220/-and received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-as advance in cash towards part of the sale consideration. The defendant agreed that after a sale deed executed in his favour from the Housing Board he will execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his family members after receiving the balance sale consideration. Time for performance of the agreement was tentatively fixed as four months and the same was extended until the defendant got the sale deed executed from the Housing Board. The parties agreed that the plaintiff shall prepare a plan for construction of a building in the said property and the defendant will sign the building plan and get the plan approved and the plaintiff thereafter shall construct the building in the suit housing plot at his own expenses.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant had been representing to the plaintiff that he has not yet got the sale deed executed in his favour from the Housing Board but attempted to forcibly take possession of the building constructed on the suit property by the plaintiff.
So the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant herein from taking forcible possession of the building constructed in the suit property. Pending the aforesaid suit, few days after, the plaintiff filed aforesaid suit for specific performance.
The defendant also filed a suit seeking a decree for injunction restraining the purchaser (defendants therein) from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
The trial court dismissed the suits filed by the plaintiff and defendant for injunction and decreed the suit preferred by the plaintiff for specific performance with the direction to the defendant to execute and register the sale document in favour of the plaintiff.
The defendant preferred appeals before the High Court.
High Court allowed the appeals preferred by the defendant.
Finding of the Court:
Order II, Rule 2 is not attracted in the case. High Court ought to have decided all issues framed by it.
Result: Civil Appeal Nos.4215-4216 of 2007 allowed in part.
JUDGMENT :
M.Y. EQBAL, J.
These appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 30.4.2004 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in A.S. Nos.665 and 666 of 2001, whereby the appeals preferred by S. Natarajan were allowed. This matter pertains to a property bearing S.No.159/10 and 11, Plot No.436, Tallakulam Village, Madurai City, measuring 6980 sq.ft., which was allotted to one S. Natarajan on lease-cum-sale agreement by the Housing Board. S. Natarajan, original defendant in O.S. Nos.445/85 & 252/86 and plaintiff in O.S. No.3/86 alleged to have entered into a sale agreement with respect to the suit property with one Inbasegaran. Therefore, for the sake of convenience S. Natarajan and Inbasegaran are hereinafter respectively referred to as ‘defendant’ and ‘plaintiff’.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the plaintiff filed a suit being O.S. No.252 of 1986 for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 19.1.1984 with respect to aforesaid suit schedule property. According to him, the said land was allotted to the defendant on lease-cum-sale agreement on 4.7.1975 by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (in short, ‘Housing Board’). Since the defendant had not constructed building on the said site for the purpose of getting sale deed as contemplated under the lease-cum-sale agreement, the Board did not execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant. Hence, he entered into a sale agreement on 19.1.1984 with the plaintiff. In the said agreement, he agreed to sell the suit house site to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs.3,84,220/-and received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-as advance in cash towards part of the sale consideration. It is alleged that the defendant agreed that after a sale deed executed in his favour from the Housing Board he will execute and register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his family members after receiving the balance sale consideration. Time for performance of the agreement was tentatively fixed as four months and the same was extended until the defendant got the sale deed executed from the Housing Board. The parties agreed that the plaintiff shall prepare a plan for construction of a building in the said property and the defendant will sign the building plan and get the plan approved and the plaintiff thereafter shall construct the building in the suit housing plot at his own expenses.
3. Pursuant to the sale agreement, the plaintiff took possession of the suit property and completed the construction. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had been representing to the plaintiff that he has not yet got the sale deed executed in his favour from the Housing Board but attempted to forcibly take possession of the building constructed on the suit property by the plaintiff. So the plaintiff filed a suit being O.S. No.445/1985 on 11.9.1985 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant herein from taking forcible possession of the building constructed in the suit property. Pending the aforesaid suit, few days after, the plaintiff on 25.4.1986 filed aforesaid suit for specific performance being O.S. No.252 of 1986.
4. The defendant pleaded in his written statement that the agreement dated 19.1.1984 is not a valid document and the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit as he had relinquished his right. It is also stated that the agreement was executed when the defendant was not the owner of the site and any sale by the defendant was prohibited as per the terms and conditions of the lease-cum-sale agreement entered into with the Housing Board and so the agreement in question is void, inoperative and opposed to law. The defendant also denied the payment of Rs.1,00,000/-in cash as advance as alleged by the plaintiff. Even with respect to the averment in the plaint that the plaintiff was permitted to put up construction in the suit site, the same is denied. The defendant also denied that the plaintiff put up construction at his own cost. The defendant f
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
