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

2023 Supreme(AP) 15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI, J.
Dondapati Bhaskara Rao, S/o. Nageswara Rao – Appellant
Versus
Nannapaneni Siva Nageswara Rao, S/o. Venkata Subbaiah – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition Nos.4268 & 4273 of 2015
Decided on : 28-03-2023.

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri P.Prabhakara Rao
For the Respondent: Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi

The court must follow the procedure under Order XXI Rule 12A of CPC and Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 while dealing with execution proceedings related to specific performance of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property.

Headnote:

SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963 - SECTION 28 - RESCISSION OF CONTRACTS FOR SALE OR LEASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - SUMMARY

Fact of the Case:

The judgment debtor failed to comply with the decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale of immovable property by not paying the balance sale consideration within the stipulated time. The decree-holder deposited the balance sale consideration into the court seven months after the passing of the decree.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court erred in not considering the procedure under Order XXI Rule 12A of CPC and Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 while accepting the amount deposited by the decree-holder.

Issues: Whether the trial court committed any irregularity in the orders passed in the execution proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree for specific performance is in the nature of a preliminary decree, and the court retains jurisdiction to conclude the further steps to be taken in the suit. The person who has obtained a decree for specific performance must deposit the money or other sum ordered by the court within the stipulated time to avoid rescission of the contract. The trial court failed to consider the relevant provisions and procedures while accepting the amount deposited by the decree-holder, resulting in a material irregularity.

Final Decision: The orders passed by the trial court were set aside, and the case was remanded for a fresh decision after hearing both parties and following the proper procedure.

ORDER :

Heard Sri P.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for revision-petitioner/judgment-debtor and Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel for respondent/decree-holder.

2. Civil Revision Petition No.4268 of 2015 was preferred by the Judgment-debtor against the Order, dated 13.08.2015 passed by XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama in E.A.No.22 of 2015 in E.P.No.5 of 2015 in O.S.No.9 of 2014, which was filed under Order XXI Rule 1 (a) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’) to permit the judgment-debtor to deposit the amount as per the terms of the decree.

3. Civil Revision Petition No.4273 of 2015 was preferred by the Judgment-debtor against the Order, dated 13.08.2015 passed by XVI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nandigama in E.P.No.5 of 2015 in O.S.No.9 of 2014, wherein the Trial Court ‘Rejected’ the objections raised by the judgment-debtor and directed him to receive the balance sale consideration and execute Registered Sale Deed in favour of the decree-holder.

4. Now, the point that arises for consideration is:-

    “Whether the Trial Court committed any irregularity in the Orders, dated 13.08.2015 in E.A.No.22 of 2015 & E.P.No.5 of 2015 in O.S.No.9 of 2014?

5. POINT: -

Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been decreed. —

    (1) Where in any suit a decree for specific performance of a contract for the sale or lease of immovable property has been made and the purchaser or lessee does not, within the period allowed by the decree or such further period as the court may allow, pay the purchase money or other sum which the court has ordered him to pay, the vendor or lessor may apply in the same suit in which the decree is made, to have the contract rescinded and on such application the court may, by order, rescind the contract either so far as regards the party in default or altogether, as the justice of the case may require.

(2) Where a contract is rescinded under sub-section (1), the court—

(a) shall direct the purchaser or the lessee, if he has obtained possession of the property under the contract, to restore such possession to the vendor or lessor, and

(b) may direct payment to the vendor or lessor of all the rents and profits which have accrued in respect of the property from the date on which possession was so obtained by the purchaser or lessee until restoration of possession to the vendor or lessor, and if the justice of the case so requires, the refund of any sum paid by the vendee or lessee as earnest money or deposit in connection with the contract.

(3) If the purchaser or lessee pays the purchase money or other sum which he is ordered to pay under the decree within the period referred to in sub-section (1), the court may, on application made in the same suit, award the purchaser or lessee such further relief as he may be entitled to, including in appropriate cases all or any of the following reliefs, namely:—

(a) the execution of a proper conveyance or lease by the vendor or lessor;

(b) the delivery of possession, or partition and separate possession, of the property on the execution of such conveyance or lease.

(4) No separate suit in respect of any relief which may be claimed under this section shall lie at the instance of a vendor, purchaser, lessor or lessee, as the case may be.

(5) The costs of any proceedings under this section shall be in the discretion of the court.

6. A decree for specific performance being in the nature of a preliminary decree, the Court after passing of the said decree does not become functus officio. It retains the jurisdiction to conclude the further steps to be taken in the suit. The decree-holder chooses to file an execution petition for getting the sale deed registered through the Court when the defendant who suffered the decree fails to obey the same. Though called ‘execution proceedings’, it

    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