1. Agreement to sell agricultural land — partial execution of sale deeds — subsequent sale of remaining share to third party — suit for specific performance. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 345
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Shivaji Yallappa Patil – Appellant
Versus
Sri Ranajeet Appasaheb Patil & Others – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5012 OF 2008
Decided on : 16-04-2018
IMPORTANT POINT
Discretionary power of granting specific performance may be exercised upon the plaintiff doing substantial acts or suffering losses in consequence of a contract capable of specific performance.
Headnote:(a) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20 – Discretionary power – May be exercised upon the plaintiff doing substantial acts or suffering losses in consequence of a contract capable of specific performance. (Para 11)
(b) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 53A – Respondents 1 and 2 put in possession of suit land by husband of respondent 3 in pursuance of agreement to sell – Respondent 3 refusing to execute sale deed – Selling suit land to respondent 4 – High Court rightly granted relief of specific performance. (Para 15, 16)
(1883) 8 App Cases 467 – Referred
Facts of the case:
The suit property is an agricultural land wherein several persons were owners of their defined shares and were in cultivation till 28.05.1981. Later on, the above suit land was divided equally into two parts as Eastern and Western. In pursuance to the said partition, the joint owners gave a joint application to the Survey Department for demarcation of boundary line between the eastern and western land showing their respective names to their respective parts. The land in the ratio of 1/2, 1/6, 1/6 and 1/6 was given to Ashabai w/o Manohar Kulkarni, Yashwant Kulkarni (Husband of Respondent no. 3 herein), Dattaraya Kulkarni and Laxmibai Ganesh Kulkarni respectively in the eastern side.
It is the case of the plaintiffs (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein) that the above named persons agreed to sell their share to the plaintiffs. After settlement, the total price of one part was fixed at Rs. 22,000/-and Rs. 2,000/-was paid in advance. The measurement was finally carried out and approved on 30.12.1983. By that time, Yashwant Kulkarni and Dattaraya Kulkarni expired. Sudha, wife of Yashwant Kulkarni got 1/6 share of her husband in the eastern side and got her name entered in the record of rights for Survey No. 77.
The co-owners (except Sudha, having 1/6th share) of the eastern side executed a sale deed in favour of plaintiffs on 13.02.1984 and they were put in actual possession of the land. On 21.03.1986, Respondent No. 3 herein (wife of Yashwant Kulkarni), the owner of 1/6th share of land in Survey No. 77, sold her share to Respondent No. 4 herein.
Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein) filed an Original Suit for specific performance against Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein which was dismissed.
The plaintiffs filed a Regular Appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant herein, purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed for valuable consideration. It is also alleged by the appellant herein that he was put in possession of the suit property. The appellant purchased the suit property as he is having his landed property adjacent to the suit property. The appeal was partly allowed and grant of specific performance of the contract was refused.
The plaintiffs preferred a Regular Second Appeal before the High Court which was allowed in favour of the plaintiffs and the specific performance of the contract was ordered provided plaintiffs paid prevailing market value within 6 (six) months from the date of judgment.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in impugned judgment.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Discretionary nature of specific performance under Section 20, SR Act — lack of readiness and willingness — delivery of possession — rights of subsequent bona fide purchasers. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. Possession of the suit land was established via a prior injunction decree, justifying the grant of specific performance despite subsequent transfers to third parties. (Para 14 , 15 )
4. Specific performance is discretionary under Section 20, SR Act, but may be granted where the plaintiff has performed substantial acts or is in possession. (Para 10 , 11 )
5. Appeal dismissed — High Court decree for specific performance upheld — payment of prevailing market value directed. (Para 16 )
6. Is the grant of specific performance a matter of right for the plaintiff?
No, the power to order specific performance is discretionary under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. While not a matter of right, this discretion must be exercised judicially, prudently, and based on sound and reasonable principles. (Para 10 )
7. Does the potential injury to a third party's interest automatically prevent a decree for specific performance?
No, the possibility of injury to a third party does not by itself disentitle a plaintiff. The court considers the facts and circumstances of each case, particularly whether the plaintiff has performed substantial acts or suffered losses in consequence of the contract. (Para 11 )
8. What are the essential requirements to claim protection under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act?
Requirements include a written contract for consideration signed by the transferor, terms sufficient to construe the transfer, the transferee taking possession or performing acts in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee being honestly ready and willing to perform their part. (Para 12 , 13 )
JUDGMENT :
R.K. Agrawal, J.
1. The above appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.06.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular Second Appeal No. 568 of 2000 whereby learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein (original plaintiffs) against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2000 in Regular Appeal No. 29 of 1997 passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hukeri and the order dated 21.07.1992 in Original Suit No. 123 of 1986.
2. Brief facts:
(a) The suit property is an agricultural land situated at Khavanewadi village in Hukeri Taluka bearing Survey No. 77, measuring 6 acres 8 guntas wherein several persons were owners of their defined shares and were in cultivation till 28.05.1981. Later on, the above suit land was divided into two parts as Eastern and Western measuring 3 acres 4 guntas each. In pursuance to the said partition, the joint owners gave a joint application to the Survey Department for demarcation of boundary line between the eastern and western land showing their respective names to their respective parts. The land in the ratio of 1/2, 1/6, 1/6 and 1/6 was given to Ashabai w/o Manohar Kulkarni, Yashwant Kulkarni (Husband of Respondent no. 3 herein), Dattaraya Kulkarni and Laxmibai Ganesh Kulkarni respectively in the eastern side.
(b) It is the case of the plaintiffs (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein) that the above named persons agreed to sell their share to the plaintiffs (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein). Though the exact division was not ascertained, it was decided to execute the sale deed only after the division. After settlement, the total price of 3 acres 4 guntas was fixed at Rs. 22,000/-and Rs. 2,000/-was paid in advance. The measurement was finally carried out and approved on 30.12.1983. By that time, Yashwant Kulkarni and Dattaraya Kulkarni expired. Sudha, wife of Yashwant Kulkarni got 1/6 share of her husband in the eastern side and got her name entered in the record of rights for Survey No. 77.
(c) The co-owners (except Sudha, having 1/6th share) of the eastern side executed a sale deed in favour of plaintiffs on 13.02.1984 and they were put in actual possession of the land. On 21.03.1986, Respondent No. 3 herein (wife of Yashwant Kulkarni), the owner of 1/6th share of land in Survey No. 77, sold her share to Respondent No. 4 herein.
(d) Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein) filed an Original Suit being No. 123 of 1986 for specific performance against Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 herein before the Court of the Addl. Munsiff, Hukeri. Learned Addl. Munsiff, vide judgment and order dated 21.07.1992, dismissed the suit.
(e) Aggrieved by the decision dated 21.07.1992, the plaintiffs filed a Regular Appeal being No. 29 of 1997 before the Court of Civil Judge, (Sr. Dn.) Hukeri. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant herein, purchased the suit property through a registered sale deed for valuable consideration. It is also alleged by the appellant herein that he was put in possession of the suit property. The appellant purchased the suit property as he is having his landed property adjacent to the suit property. Learned Civil Judge, vide judgment and order dated 25.02.2000, partly allowed the appeal while refusing to grant specific performance of the contract.
(f) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.02.2000, the plaintiffs preferred a Regular Second Appeal being No. 568 of 2000 before the High Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 29.06.2005, allowed the second appeal in favour of the plaintiffs and ordered the specific performance of the contract provided plaintiffs shall pay prevailing market value within 6 (six) months from the date of judgment.
(g) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29.06.2005, the appellant herein has preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court. 3) Heard Mr. Shankar Divate, learned counsel for
