Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, SANJAY KAROL, JJ.
Major Gen. Darshan Singh (D) By Lrs. & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Brij Bhushan Chaudhary (D) by Lrs. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9360 of 2013
Decided On : 01-03-2024
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20 – Agreement to sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Under Section 20 of 1963 Act, grant of a decree for specific performance is always discretionary – Exercise of discretion depends on several factors – One of factors is conduct of plaintiff – A person who seeks equity must do equity – Suit agreement does not refer to defendant's status as Karta of family – However, in draft sale deed relied upon by plaintiffs, defendant was described as a vendor representing HUF as its Karta – Though first plaintiff gave up his case of novation and reduction of price of suit property, he pleaded that he had kept a balance consideration of Rs.2,60,000/- ready in form of a Demand Draft – Plaintiffs had paid only a sum of Rs.30,000/- by way of earnest money – Balance consideration was Rs.3,20,000/- – Relief of specific performance is discretionary and equitable – Considering plaintiffs' conduct of making false and/or incorrect statements in plaint, which were very material, plaintiffs are disentitled to relief of specific performance – Trial Court, Appellate Court and High Court were justified in denying discretionary relief of specific performance to plaintiffs – Decree of Trial Court modified by directing that damages of Rs.40,000/- awarded by Trial Court will carry interest @ 6% per annum from date of decree of Trial Court till its payment or realisation. (Paras 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal takes an exception to the judgment of High Court in the second appeal preferred by appellants. Appellant no.1 was the first plaintiff, and appellant no. 1(ii), (iii) and (iv), as well as appellant no. 2 were co-plaintiffs. Original first respondent was the defendant in the suit. For convenience, we are referring to the parties with reference to their status before the Trial Court.
Findings of Court:
Though the first plaintiff gave up his case of novation and reduction of the price of the suit property, he pleaded that he had kept a balance consideration of Rs.2,60,000/- ready in form of a Demand Draft. Admittedly, plaintiffs had paid only a sum of Rs.30,000/- by way of earnest money. Therefore, balance consideration was Rs.3,20,000/-.
Result : Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Abhay S. Oka, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment of the High Court in the second appeal preferred by the appellants. Appellant no.1 was the first plaintiff, and appellant no. 1(ii), (iii) and (iv), as well as appellant no. 2 were the co-plaintiffs. The original first respondent was the defendant in the suit. For convenience, we are referring to the parties with reference to their status before the Trial Court.
2. The defendant (Brij Bhushan Chaudhary) executed an agreement for sale dated 16th January 1980 (for short, ‘the suit agreement’) in favour of plaintiff no.1 (Major General (retd) Darshan Singh) in respect of plot of land admeasuring approximately 2438 sq. yards with structure thereon being residential House no.33, R.P. No. 2829, Sector 2-A, Chandigarh (for short, ‘the suit property’). The agreed consideration was Rs.3,50,000/-. A sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid by the plaintiff no. 1 to the defendant by way of earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 30th April 1980. Clause no.3 in the suit agreement provided that in the event of the failure of the defendant to honour the agreement, his liability will be to refund the sum of Rs.30,000/- along with damages of Rs.10,000/- without any interest. The clause further provided that plaintiff no.1 will have no right to claim any other damages or to file a suit for specific performance.
3. According to the case of plaintiff no.1, there were further negotiations after the execution of the suit agreement, and it was agreed to reduce the price to Rs.2,90,000/-. Consequently, a draft sale deed was executed between plaintiff no.1 and the defendant on 18th March 1980. We may note here that along with plaintiff no.1, his daughters Raman, Pawan and Narveen were co-plaintiffs. All of them were signatories to the draft sale deed. According to the plaintiffs' case, necessary sale permission under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was granted on 11th August 1980. The plaintiffs claimed that on the date of execution of the draft sale deed, they were put in possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs purchased stamp papers worth Rs.23,200/- on 19th July 1980, as desired by the defendant. According to the plaintiffs' case, the defendant changed his mind as there was a price rise of the properties in the vicinity of the suit property. Therefore, a telegraphic notice was issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant on 26th August 1980, calling upon him to remain present in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Chandigarh on 29th August 1980 between 10 am and 4 pm for registration of the sale deed. The case of the plaintiffs is that notwithstanding the service of the said notice, the defendant neither replied nor remained present before the Sub-Registrar for registration of the sale deed. Therefore, a suit for specific performance was filed by the plaintiffs. In the alternative, the plaintiffs claimed relief of damages of Rs.40,000/-.
4. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement in which he contended that the suit property belonged to his Hindu Undivided Family and the members of the family were in joint possession of the suit property. The defendant denied that the possession of the property was handed over to the plaintiffs. Replication (further pleading) was filed by the plaintiffs dealing with the averments made in the written statement.
5. The Trial Court declined to grant relief of specific performance and passed a decree of damages in the sum of Rs.40,000/- payable to plaintiff no.1. The suit as regards plaintiff nos. 2 to 4 was dismissed. The Trial Court framed eleven issues. The Trial Court held that though there was a clause to the contrary in the suit agreement, it would not bar the plaintiff’s remedy to seek a specific performance. The Trial Court held that the suit property was the property of HUF (for short, ‘HUF property’) of the defendant's family. The Trial Court held that the theory of the p
Agreement to sell – Relief of specific performance is discretionary and equitable.
(1) Agreement to sell – Specific performance will not be ordered if contract itself suffers from some defect which makes contract invalid or unenforceable – Discretion of court will not be there even....
In discretionary specific performance cases, courts must balance hardship and enforceability; mere proof of agreement does not guarantee relief when it risks severe hardship for the defendant.
Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 mandates readiness and willingness on the part of the plaintiff seeking specific performance and the plaintiff has to prove the same.
The court upheld that a partition among co-owners allows individual members to execute sale agreements for their shares without needing consent from others, reinforcing the enforceability of prior co....
The court ruled that a plaintiff must prove readiness and willingness to execute a sale agreement, and failure to do so, along with undue hardship to defendants, can preclude specific performance.
Specific performance requires continual readiness and willingness to fulfill contractual obligations; consent from co-owners must be secured for the contract to be enforceable.
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
