SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DEEPAK GUPTA, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
Surinder Kaur (D) through LRs. Jasinderjit Singh (D) through LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Bahadur Singh (D) through LRs. – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 7424-7425 of 2011
Decided On : 11-09-2019
(a) Specific Relief Act - Section 20 - Jurisdiction to decree a suit for specific performance - Discretionary jurisdiction - Court not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful. (Para 8, 14)
(b) Contract Act, 1872 - Section 51 r/w section 16(c) and 20, Specific Relief Act - Vendor receiving less than 20% of sale consideration - Handing over possession - Execution of sale deed incumbent upon decision in a pending suit - In case there is no decision within one year, vendee to pay customary rent - Possession of land given to vendee only on this understanding - It was, held, a reciprocal promise and an essential part of agreement to sell. (Para 9)
(c) Specific Relief Act - Section 16(c) - Payment of customary rent by vendee till decision of litigation, if not within 1 year, essential term of agreement to sell - Vendee not paying any rent during the 13 years - Held, failed to perform his part of contract. (Para 10, 13)
Facts of the case:
Mohinder Kaur, predecessor in interest of the appellants entered into an agreement with Bahadur Singh, predecessor in interest of the respondents on 13.05.1964 whereby she agreed to sell the suit land to Bahadur Singh for a total sale consideration of Rs. 5605/-. Out of this, Rs. 1000/- was paid as earnest money at the time of execution of agreement to sell and it was agreed that the balance amount would be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. The possession of the land was handed over to the vendee on the date of agreement to sell itself. Since there was some litigation with regard to the property it was agreed between the parties that the sale deed would be executed within one month from the date of decision of civil appeal pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
The litigation was decided on 17.01.1977, i.e. about 13 years after the agreement to sell was entered into. Bahadur Singh requested Mohinder Kaur to execute the sale deed but since she failed to do so, a suit for specific performance of the agreement was filed by Bahadur Singh. In the alternative, it was prayed that a decree be passed for a sum of Rs. 5605/- i.e. Rs. 1000/- paid as earnest money and Rs. 4605/- as damages. The defendant raised the plea that since Bahadur Singh had admittedly failed to pay the rent of the land in terms of Clause 3 of the agreement, he was not entitled to a decree for specific performance.
The suit has been decreed by all the courts below.
Finding of the Court:
Payment of customary rent by vendee till decision of litigation, if not within 1 year, essential term of agreement to sell.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
1. The question of law arising in these appeals is whether a vendee who does not perform one of his promises in a contract can obtain the discretionary relief of specific performance of that very contract.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that Mohinder Kaur, predecessor in interest of the appellants entered into an agreement with Bahadur Singh, predecessor in interest of the respondents on 13.05.1964 whereby she agreed to sell the suit land to Bahadur Singh for a total sale consideration of Rs. 5605/-. Out of this, Rs. 1000/- was paid as earnest money at the time of execution of agreement to sell and it was agreed that the balance amount would be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. The possession of the land was handed over to the vendee on the date of agreement to sell itself. Since there was some litigation with regard to the property it was agreed between the parties that the sale deed would be executed within one month from the date of decision of civil appeal pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
3. To decide the appeals, it would be necessary to refer to Clauses 2 and 3 of the agreement to sell which read as under:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) That an appeal in respect of the abovementioned land is pending in the High Court and after decision in the said appeal, the First Party shall execute and register Sale-Deed in favour of the Second Party in the month of July, 1965.
(3) That the possession of the land has been handed today and in case the decision by the High Court in the appeal is after one year, then the sale deed shall be executed and registered after one month from the date of decision and in the circumstance, the Second Party shall pay to the First party the customary rent for the said land.
xxx xxx xxx
4. It is not disputed that the litigation referred to in the agreement was decided on 17.01.1977, i.e. about 13 years after the agreement to sell was entered into. Bahadur Singh requested Mohinder Kaur to execute the sale deed but since she failed to do so, a suit for specific performance of the agreement was filed by Bahadur Singh. In the alternative, it was prayed that a decree be passed for a sum of Rs. 5605/- i.e. Rs. 1000/- paid as earnest money and Rs. 4605/- as damages. This suit was contested on various grounds but we are concerned with only one wherein the defendant raised the plea that since Bahadur Singh had admittedly failed to pay the rent of the land in terms of Clause 3 of the agreement, he was not entitled to a decree for specific performance.
5. The suit has been decreed by all the courts below. There is no dispute with regard to the factual aspects. The only issue is whether the vendee Bahadur Singh who admittedly did not pay the rent is entitled to a decree of specific performance of the agreement dated 13.05.1964. The courts below have held that the agreement contained several promises which may be reciprocal, contingent or separate. Section 51 [Promisor not bound to perform, unless reciprocal promisee ready and willing to perform - When a contract consists of reciprocal promises to be simultaneously performed, no promisor need perform his promise unless the promisee is ready and willing to perform his reciprocal promise] of the Contract Act, 1872 provides that when a contract consists of reciprocal promises to be simultaneously performed, no promisor needs to perform his promise unless the promisee is ready and willing to perform his reciprocal promise.
6. The aforesaid provisions have to be read along with Section 16(c) [Personal bars to relief - Specific performance of a contract cannot be enforced in favour of a person:
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) xxx xxx xxx
(c) who fails to prove that he has performed or has always been ready and willing to perform the essential terms of the contract which are to be performed by him, other than terms the performance of which has been prevented or waived by the defendant.
Explanation - For the purposes of clause (c):
(i) where a contract
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.