Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)
K.M. JOSEPH, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
Rajbir - Appellant
Versus
Suraj Bhan & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1700 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19687 of 2019)
Decided On : 28-02-2022
Procedure - Specific Performance - Order XXI Rule 34 of CPC - Failure to follow the procedure laid down by law can result in grave miscarriage of justice to the judgment debtor and delay in the decree holder realising the fruits of the decree
Fact of the Case:
The appellant and his brother agreed to sell certain property to the respondents. The respondents instituted a suit for specific performance, which was decreed. The appellant's objections to the execution of the decree were rejected. The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant. The appellant contended that the respondents did not comply with the decree by not depositing the full sale consideration. The objections were dismissed, and a sale deed was executed without giving the appellant an opportunity to file objections to the draft sale deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the property subject to the decree was 24 Kanals and 2 Marlas, and the execution court contravened Order XXI Rule 34 of CPC by allowing the execution of the sale deed without inviting and considering objections to the draft sale deed. The court directed the execution court to hand over the draft sale deed to the appellant for filing objections and to decide on the objections after hearing the parties.
Issues: Failure to follow the procedure laid down by law for execution of a decree, contravention of Order XXI Rule 34 of CPC, and execution of sale deed without considering objections to the draft sale deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The execution court must follow the procedure laid down in Order XXI Rule 34 of CPC, including inviting and considering objections to the draft sale deed, before executing the sale deed. Execution must be in conformity with the adjudication contained in the decree.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the execution court was directed to hand over the draft sale deed to the appellant for filing objections and to decide on the objections after hearing the parties. Further proceedings based on the sale deed dated 11.06.2019 were kept in abeyance until a decision was taken by the Court.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The case involves the execution of a decree for specific performance of sale of property, with a focus on compliance with procedural requirements under Order XXI Rule 34 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The decree mandated that the remaining sale consideration be deposited within a specified period, and the sale deed was to be executed only after proper adherence to this procedure (!) (!) .
The execution proceedings were initiated, but objections raised by the judgment debtor (appellant) included allegations that the decree was not properly executed because the draft sale deed was not served upon him, and the sale was executed without considering his objections (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The objections of the judgment debtor regarding the execution of the sale deed and the alleged discrepancy in the property survey numbers were dismissed by the courts, which held that the property in question was correctly identified and that the execution was in accordance with the decree (!) (!) .
The courts emphasized that the proper procedure under Order XXI Rule 34 requires the draft sale deed to be prepared, served upon the judgment debtor with a notice of objections, and only after considering objections, the court can approve or modify the draft before executing the sale deed (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The courts found that in this case, the draft sale deed was not served upon the appellant, and the sale was executed without inviting or considering his objections, which contravenes the mandatory procedural provisions (!) (!) (!) .
The appellate court directed that the draft sale deed be provided to the appellant within two weeks, and he be allowed to file objections within three weeks. The court would then decide on these objections after hearing both parties (!) .
If the draft sale deed is found to be non-compliant with the decree, the sale will be set aside, and fresh proceedings will be initiated to ensure proper compliance with the decree (!) .
The parties are to bear their own costs, and all further proceedings based on the executed sale deed are to be kept in abeyance until the court completes the review of the objections and ensures the decree's proper execution (!) (!) .
The courts reiterated the importance of strict adherence to procedural law to prevent miscarriage of justice and avoid future litigation arising from procedural lapses (!) (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you require a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice related to this case.
JUDGMENT :
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
Leave granted.
1. While procedure is said to be the handmaiden of justice and substantial justice must prevail and the former may take the backseat, failure to follow the procedure laid down by law can result in grave miscarriage of justice to the judgment debtor and delay in the decree holder realising the fruits of the decree, all of which will be evident from facts of this case as we narrate them.
2. The appellant along with his brother agreed to sell certain property which we shall refer to, to the respondents-Suraj Bhan and Balraj on 28.01.2006. Thereupon, the respondents instituted a suit for specific performance. It was inter alia the case of the respondents that the brother of the appellant (Raj Kumar) had already conveyed his part of the property in conformity with the agreement. The appellant, it would appear, had sold the property to a person who was arrayed as second defendant in the suit. The suit finally came to be decreed. In other words, a decree for specific performance was passed. The terms of the decree may be noticed as follows :
Decree in terms thereto is as follows:
“Suit property: Land comprising in Khewat no. 346 Rect No. & Killa numbers 45 18.10.20/1.2364/3 4,62.78 14 & numbran 882.824 measuring 72 kanal 7 Marlas to the extent of 1/3 shares which comms out 24 kanal 2 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of village salahawas Tehsil & District Jhajjar.
This suit coming on this 4 day of January 2013 for for final disposal before me(Fkhruddin, Civil Judge (Sr. Divn. Jhajar) in the presence of Shri M.S Ahlawat counsel for the plaintiff Sh. Mahesh Kumar counsel for defendant no. 1. Sh. R.P. Suhag counsel for defendant no.2.
Suit presented on: 16.1.2007
It is ordered that suit of plaintiff succeed and is hereby decreed with costs. A decree of declaration to the effect that agreement to sell Ex D1 and sale deed Ex.D3 are illegal, null and void, paper transaction and no binding on the rights of plaintiffs qua the suit land. A decree of possession by way of specific performance in the respective share of plaintiffs is hereby passed in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants. The defendants no. 1 shall get the sale deed executed and registered in favour of plaintiffs in view of terms and conditions of agreement to sell Ex P2. The plaintiffs however, shall deposit the remaining part of sale consideration and within one month from the date of this judgment. In case of failure to get execute and register the sale deed by defendant no. 1, the plaintiffs will be at liberty to take the assistance of court in this regard.”
3. The appellant was unsuccessful in challenging the aforesaid decree both in first appeal and, what is more, in the second appeal before the High Court. An attempt made before this Court culminated in the rejection of the special leave petition filed by the appellant. The respondents applied for execution. The appellant filed his objections. They are as follows :
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the applications filed by the petitioners were misconceived and misdirected, and that the petitioners lacked locus standi to raise objections.....
The provisions of Order 21 Rule 34 are mandatory and provide an opportunity for the Judgment debtor to file objections to the draft sale deed while executing the decree for specific performance. The ....
Point of law: If once we accept the legal position that neither a contract for sale nor a decree passed on that basis for specific performance of the contract gives any right or title to the decree-h....
The execution of a decree for specific performance does not require the presentation of a draft deed if a valid draft exists on record, and payment into court suffices for compliance.
Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 47 or under Order 21 of CPC must not issue notice on application of a third party claiming right in a mechanical manner.
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
