SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 82

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna, JJ.
Sukhwinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Jagroop Singh & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 760 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 10949 of 2019)
Decided on : 28-01-2020

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocates
for the Respondent:Mahendra Kumar, Swati Jain, Rajnish Kumar Jha, Ilin Saraswat, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
For a decree of specific performance readiness and willingness of purchaser, more particularly availability of the balance sale consideration on stipulated date, required to be proved.

Headnote:

Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16 - For a decree of specific performance readiness and willingness of purchaser, more particularly availability of the balance sale consideration on stipulated date, required to be proved - Instantly there is no document on record to that effect, more particularly to indicate the availability of the balance sale consideration as on 15.06.2004 and as on the date of filing the suit - The suit was decreed erroneously. (Para 11, 12)

Facts of the case:

The appellant herein was the defendant No. 2 in Case No. 915 of 16.11.2004/17.04.2015. The respondent No.1 herein was the plaintiff in the suit. The respondent No.2 herein was the defendant No.1 therein. The parties will be referred to in the rank assigned to them in the suit for the purpose of convenience and clarity.

The plaintiff-respondent 1instituted the suit seeking for decree of possession by way of specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 03.01.2004 executed by defendant No.1-respondent 2 in favour of the plaintiff. Suit was decreed ex parte.

The defendant No.2-appellant who was the purchaser of the property filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code in Misc. Application No.46 of 23.02.2011 seeking that the ex parte decree be set aside and the suit be restored for consideration which was allowed by Supreme Court with cost.

Suit for specific performance was decreed by all the three courts below.

Finding of the Court:

The suit was decreed erroneously.

Result: Appeal allowed in part.

JUDGMENT

A.S. Bopanna, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein was the defendant No. 2 in Case No. 915 of 16.11.2004/17.04.2015. The respondent No.1 herein was the plaintiff in the suit. The respondent No.2 herein was the defendant No.1 therein. The parties will be referred to in the rank assigned to them in the suit for the purpose of convenience and clarity. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking for decree of possession by way of specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 03.01.2004 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the land measuring 3 Kanals 4 Marlas comprised of Khewat No. 36/35 Khatauni No. 91, Rect. No.63 Killa No.2/2 (3-4), situated in village Dulla Singh Wala, Tehsil and District Ferozpur.

3. The case of the plaintiff was that the property was agreed to be sold for the total consideration of Rs. 1,40,000/-. Towards the said amount the plaintiff had paid the sum of Rs.69,500/- as earnest money. The plaintiff had further prayed in the suit to set aside the Sale Deed dated 11.06.2004 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 since according to the plaintiff the same was null and void and did not bind the plaintiff. In the alternative, the plaintiff had sought for a decree to recover a sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- of which Rs. 69,500/- had been paid as earnest money while the remaining sum of Rs. 70,500/- was sought as damages. The defendants at the first instance had failed to appear and contest the suit. Accordingly, the Trial Court by its judgment dated 14.06.2007 had decreed the suit.

4. Though the defendant No. 1 did not make out any grievance thereafter, the defendant No.2 who was the purchaser of the property filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code in Misc. Application No.46 of 23.02.2011 seeking that the ex parte decree be set aside and the suit be restored for consideration. Since the said petition was filed with delay, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed seeking condonation of delay. The Trial Court having considered the same through its decision dated 07.08.2012 dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay, consequently the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code was also dismissed as barred by Limitation. The defendant No. 2 claiming to be aggrieved preferred Civil Revision No. 5332/2012 (O&M) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. In the said Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court had concurred with the decision of the Trial Court and dismissed the Revision Petition through its decision dated 12.09.2012. The defendant No.2 had carried the same before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1406/2015. This Court on taking into consideration that the defendant No.2 who was the appellant in the said Civil Appeal is to be provided an opportunity to contest the suit, had allowed the appeal by order dated 02.02.2015 subject to payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- as cost. Leave to file the written statement in the suit was also granted. Pursuant thereto the defendant No.2 having paid the cost, filed the written statement and the suit was proceeded in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto the impugned judgments are passed which are assailed herein.

5. Mr. Rahul Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the defendant No.2 is the bonafide purchaser without notice of the alleged agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. He contends that the entire transaction was entered into in a bonafide manner and the Sale Deed having been registered, the defendant No.2 was put in possession of the suit schedule property as far back as on 11.06.2004. Nearly 16 years have passed by and the defendant No. 2 has carried out considerable improvement to the property and is residing in the house constructed therein. In that view, at this juncture if the specific performance as sought


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top