Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, JJ.
Urmila Devi and Others - Appellants
Versus
Deity, Mandir Shree Chamunda Devi, Through Temple Commissioner and Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 462 of 2018 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 25771 of 2013)
Decided On : 10-01-2018
Specific Relief act – Section 21 – Power to grant decree for specific performance of contract discretionary – Court in equity jurisdiction would be guided by justice, equity, good conscience and fairness to both the parties. (Para 14)
(1992) 1 SCC 647; (1996) 4 SCC 593 – Relied upon
Specific Relief act – Section 21 – Land owners executing agreement to sell the suit land with appellants – Receiving full consideration and handing over possession – Sale deed not executed – Land owners instead executing gift geed in favour of defendant 6 – Suit land acquired during litigation – Compensation of Rs. 10,03,743 awarded – Gift deed having been held null and void by courts below defendant 6, despite his name being registered in revenue records, not entitled to receive compensation for suit land – Held, appellants entitled to receive compemsation of Rs.10 lakh – Balance amount would go to land owner. (Para 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
Respondent Nos.2 to 6 executed an agreement to sell dated 19.04.1989 in favour of Krishan Lal, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants for sale of their 5/16th share in suit land for consideration of Rs. 90,000/-. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 received full consideration of Rs. 90,000/- and handed over possession to the plaintiff.
Respondent Nos.2 to 6 executed a gift deed in favour of respondent No.1 of the suit land on 08.07.1991.
When in spite of respondents having received the entire sale consideration the sale deed was not executed and with mala fide intention the gift deed was executed in favour of respondent No.1. Civil Suit was filed by Krishan Lal.
The trial court decreed the suit. The appeal filed by defendant No.6 was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court. Defendant No.6 filed Regular Second Appeal in the High Court. During pendency of the second appeal in the High Court notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 22.12.2005 was issued for acquisition of suit land. An award dated 10.06.2008 was also given for the land as well as three shops which were constructed in the suit land. The name of defendant No.6 being recorded in the Revenue records compensation was awarded in favour of defendant No.6.
The High Court modified the decree by ordering respondent Nos.2 to 6 to pay a sum of Rs. 90,000/- to the plaintiff with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
High Court rightly held that suit for specific performance was not maintainable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Ashok Bhushan, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff through legal heirs questioning the judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Regular Second Appeal No.117 of 2002 which appeal was filed by respondent No.1 (defendant No.6 in the suit). The High Court by the impugned judgment has modified the decree of specific performance of contract granted by two courts below into a decree ordering respondent Nos.2 to 6 to pay a sum of Rs. 90,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit.
3. The brief facts of the case which are necessary to notice for deciding the appeal are:
Respondent Nos.2 to 6 executed an agreement to sell dated 19.04.1989 in favour of Krishan Lal, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants for sale of their 5/16th share in Khasra Nos.430 and 431 equal to 02257 hectares for consideration of Rs. 90,000/-. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 received full consideration of Rs. 90,000/- and handed over possession to the plaintiff. The plaintiff after getting possession constructed three shops in the suit land. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 executed a gift deed in favour of respondent No.1 of the suit land on 08.07.1991. When in spite of respondents having received the entire sale consideration the sale deed was not executed and with mala fide intention the gift deed was executed in favour of respondent No.1. Civil Suit No.148 of 1991 was filed by Krishan Lal. Written statements were filed by defendant Nos.1 to 5 jointly and separate written statement was filed by defendant No.6 who is respondent No.1 in the present appeal. It was admitted to all defendants that the suit land has been gifted in favour of defendant No.6 by gift deed dated 08.07.1991. The execution of agreement to sell was not disputed and the receipt of total sale consideration was also not denied. The trial court decreed the suit vide its judgment and order dated 31.03.1999. The trial court declared that gift deed executed by defendant Nos.1 to 5 in favour of defendant No.6 is null and void to the extent they relate to the doner's 5/16th share in the suit land that was agreed to be sold by them to the plaintiff, decree of specific performance was granted in favour of the plaintiff against defendant Nos.1 to 5. The appeal was filed by defendant No.6 only against the judgment of the trial court which was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 17.12.2001. Defendant No.6 filed Regular Second Appeal in the High Court being RSA No.117 of 2002. During pendency of the second appeal in the High Court notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 22.12.2005 was issued for acquisition of suit land. An award dated 10.06.2008 was also given for the land as well as three shops which were constructed in the suit land. The name of defendant No.6 being recorded in the Revenue records compensation was awarded in favour of defendant No.6.
4. Before the High Court a submission was raised on behalf of defendant No.6 that the land has been acquired during the pendency of Regular Second Appeal, the decree of the specific performance cannot be maintained. The High Court agreeing with the submission of defendant No.6 modified the decree by ordering respondent Nos.2 to 6 to pay a sum of Rs. 90,000/- to the plaintiff with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit. The plaintiff through legal heirs aggrieved by the said judgment has come up in this appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of the appeal contends that the High Court erred in law in ordering the refund of Rs. 90,000/- in favour of plaintiff whereas the plaintiff(appellants) was entitled to receive the amount of compensation of land which was received by defendant No.6 consequent to the acquisition of land. Defendant No.6 had no right in the land in dispute as the gift deed had been declared null and void. It was the plaintiff (appellants) who was entitled to receive the compensation. The High Co
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
