2021 Supreme(SC) 586
K. Karuppuraj – Appellant
Versus
M. Ganesan – Respondent
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Thananjayan, AOR Ms. Promila, Adv. Ms. Aaina Verma, Adv. Ms. Jaswanti, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Navaniti Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. Ms. V. Keerthana, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, Adv.
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
- Procedural Violation by High Court: The High Court, while acting as a Court of First Appeal, failed to comply with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) by not framing points for determination, discussing the evidence, or assigning reasons for its decision. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Improper Reliance on Affidavit: The High Court erroneously relied on an affidavit filed by the plaintiff during the appeal, where the plaintiff for the first time claimed readiness and willingness to purchase the property with tenants. This contradicted the original pleadings in the plaint, which insisted on vacant possession after tenant eviction. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Requirement for Amendment: The proper legal procedure for the plaintiff to alter their stance regarding willingness would have been to file an application for amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC before the High Court could consider such a new case. (!) (!)
- Standard for Specific Performance: To obtain a decree for specific performance, a plaintiff must prove both "readiness" and "willingness." If the plaintiff fails to prove willingness, they are not entitled to the decree. (!) (!) (!) (!)
- Trial Court's Finding on Willingness: The Trial Court correctly found that the plaintiff was not willing to purchase the property as it was (with tenants present) because the agreement specifically stipulated that the defendant must evict the tenants and hand over vacant possession before executing the sale deed. (!) (!)
- Restoration of Trial Court Decree: Due to the procedural flaws and the lack of proof of willingness, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dismissing the suit for specific performance. (!) (!) (!)
- Refund and Interest: The original defendant (appellant) was directed to refund the advance amount of Rs. 3,60,001/- along with 18% interest from the date of the agreement until realization. (!) (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 27.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Appeal Suit No. 94 of 2010 by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal by quashing and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit for specific performance and consequently decreeing the suit, the original defendant has preferred the present Civil Appeal No. 6014 of 2021.
1.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 06.01.2020 rejecting the Review Application No. 71 of 2019 in Appeal Suit No. 94 of 2010, the defendant as review applicant has preferred the present Civil Appeal No. 6015 of 2021.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals in a nutshell are as under :-
2.1 An agreement for sale of the property situated in Kaspa Coimbatore was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant wherein the defendant agreed to sell the same for a sale consideration of Rs. 16.20 lakhs to the plaintiff. A part sale consideration of Rs.3,60,001/- was paid at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. There were certain conditions stipul
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
