Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji – Appellant
Versus
Sakeena Beevi – Respondent
Civil Appeal No(s). 3894 of 2022 With Civil Appeal No(s). 3895 of 2022
Decided On : 07-01-2026
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20 – Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance – Suit dismissed on the grounds of lack of readiness and willingness on part of plaintiff-appellant to get sale deed executed – Mediation efforts did not fructify in settlement – Pursuant to last extension, plaintiff-appellant paid remaining sale consideration which was accepted by co-sharers of defendant-respondent and partial sale deed to that extent, stood executed in his favour – Issue of readiness and willingness was also wrongly decided against plaintiff-appellant and in favour of defendant-respondent – Impugned judgments set aside – Plaintiff-appellant held entitled to conveyance of 1/11th share in property – Appeal allowed. (Paras 15, 30, 38, 40, 41 and 42)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is directed against final judgment and order dated 16th October, 2020, passed by High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in R.F.A. No. 267 of 2016, whereby first appeal preferred by plaintiff-appellant came to be dismissed, affirming judgment and decree dated 30th October, 2015, rendered by Sub-Judge, in Original Suit No.862 of 2013, by which suit instituted by plaintiff-appellant seeking specific performance of agreement to sell was dismissed.
Findings of Court:
There is no further requirement of continuing interim arrangement as directed by High Court by impugned order.
Result : Appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding property and agreement execution (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 2. arguments supporting plaintiff's claim and validity of agreements (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. court analysis of limitation and contract execution readiness (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 4. decree of specific performance granted (Para 40 , 41) |
| 5. final orders and conclusions regarding appeals (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
Civil Appeal No(s). 3894 of 2022
1. Heard.
2. The present appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 16th October, 2020, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam1[Hereinafter, referred to as the “High Court”.] in R.F.A. No. 267 of 2016, whereby the first appeal preferred by Muslimveetil Chalakkal Ahammed Haji2[Hereinafter, referred to as the “plaintiff-appellant”.] came to be dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree dated 30th October, 2015, rendered by the Sub-Judge, Chavakkad3[Hereinafter, referred to as the “trial Court”.] in Original Suit No.862 of 2013, by which the suit instituted by the plaintiff-appellant seeking specific performance of agreement to sell was dismissed.
Factual Background
3. Briefly stated, the facts relevant and essential for the disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.
4. The plaint schedule property admeasuring approximately three acres thirty-five cents fell to the share of Shri Buquarayil Valappilakkayil Seethi Thangal (hereinafter ‘Seethi Thangal’), father of the respondent–Sakeena Beevi4[Hereinafter, referred to as the “defendant-respondent”.], by virtue of a registered partition deed bearing No. 1274 of 1985, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Mullassery.
5. Pursuant to the death of Seethi Thangal on 22nd August, 2002, the plaint schedule property, comprised in Survey No. 116/7 of Kundazhiyoor Desom, together with the school building standing thereon and all appurtenant improvements, including ownership and management of the school, devolved upon his nine children, including the defendant-respondent.
6. All the nine legal heirs of Seethi Thangal executed an unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4) in favour of the eldest son, Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal, on 3rd September, 2002. Subsequently, on 4th September, 2002, the respondent Sakeena Beevi executed a separate registered power of attorney (Exh. B1) in favour of her son Shri Rasheeq Ahmed (DW-1).
7. The eldest brother, namely, Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal, executed an agreement for sale (Exh. A1) dated 14th May, 2007 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant for a total consideration of Rs.2,70,00,000/-. A sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was paid as an advance at the time of execution of the agreement. The date of execution under the agreement (Exh. A1) was extended on three occasions, i.e., on 14th April, 2008 [Exh. A1(a)], 7th August, 2010 [Exh. A1(b)], and 7th July, 2011 [Exh. A1(c)]. On 14th November, 2012, the defendant- respondent caused publication of a newspaper notice revoking the unregistered power of attorney (Exh. A4) issued in favour of Shri Muhammed Rafi Thangal.
8. On 30th April, 2013, the defendant-respondent executed an affidavit (Exh. A5) ratifying the power of attorney (Exh. A4) and the acts carried out thereunder, and further expressing her consent to transfer her share in the plaint schedule property. Thereafter, on 8th May, 2013, the remaining eight siblings executed a sale deed conveying their collective 10/11th share in the entire chunk of land on which the school building exists in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.
9. As the defendant-respondent refused to execute the sale deed in respect of her share, the plaintiff- appellant instituted a suit for specific performance in the year 2013, which came to be registered as O.S. No. 862 of 2013 before the trial Court.
10. The trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30th Oc
Agreement to Sell – Suit for Specific Performance cannot be dismissed where readiness and willingness on part of plaintiff stood proved.
Agreement to sell land barred by 10-year transfer prohibition after proprietary rights conferment is unenforceable for specific performance, but earnest money refundable with interest upon proof of p....
The court ruled that a specific performance claim requires the existence of valid foundational documents, particularly when minors are involved in property transactions, necessitating a retrial to pr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff must prove the execution of the agreement for specific performance, and the validity of a sale-deed executed by a power of attor....
A plaintiff seeking specific performance must demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations, and the agreement must be validly executed by all necessary pa....
The court affirmed that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, requiring the plaintiff to prove the validity of the contract and readiness to perform.
(1) Agreement to sell – Suit for specific performance – Purchaser who has paid full consideration and received original title deeds from seller would have taken possession under normal circumstances ....
A sale agreement executed by only one co-owner is defective and cannot support a claim for specific performance, which necessitates establishing readiness and willingness separately.
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
