IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of the market value for specific performance should be based on the material and evidence placed before the Court, and the introduction of a method for introducing a third-party sale was not in line with the scope of the remand.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. -

Introduction

1. These appeals are directed against an order dated 24.12.2019 (hereafter 'the impugned order') delivered by the learned Single Judge in CS(OS) No.994/1977. The said suit was instituted for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 22.12.1970 (hereafter 'the Agreement to Sell') in respect of property ad-measuring 5373 sq. yds. bearing No.4 Flagstaff Road, Civil Lines, Delhi (hereafter 'the suit property'). The said suit was decreed by the Supreme Court in terms of a judgment dated 03.12.2012 rendered in Civil Appeal No.8653/2012 and other connected appeals.

2. The Supreme Court directed specific performance of the Agreement to Sell, albeit at a consideration equivalent to market price as prevailing on the date of the said decision, that is, on 03.12.2012. Since there was no material to determine the said sale consideration, the Supreme Court remitted the matter to the Trial Court (learned Single Judge of this Court) to undertake the exercise of determining the market value of the suit property as on 03.12.2012.

3. The learned Single Judge, passed the impugned order determining the market value of the suit property, as on 03.12.2012, at Rs. 130 crores. However, the learned Single Judge also directed that on failure of the plaintiffs to pay the said price, the defendant will sell the suit property at the said price within the stipulated period. And, if the defendant also fails to sell the suit property for the aforementioned price within the period of sixty days, the plaintiffs would be entitled to purchase the suit property at Rs. 75 crores.

4. The appellants in these appeals have challenged the impugned order principally on the ground that the same exceeds the scope of remand, which was limited to determining the market value of the suit property as on 03.12.2012. The appellants contend that the impugned order in effect modifies the decree passed by the Supreme Court.

5. It is also the case of the appellants that the value of the suit property was required to be determined on the basis of evidence led by the parties. Whereas, the plaintiffs had led evidence, the defendant had not led any evidence. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the market value of the suit property, as determined by the learned Single Judge, is in disregard of the evidence available on record.

6. The controversy in the present appeal relates to determination of the market value of the suit property as on 03.12.2012.

Factual Background

7. The appellants in these appeals are sons of Late Sh. Bhiku Ram Jain (since deceased). Late Sh. Bhiku Ram Jain entered into the Agreement to Sell dated 22.12.1970 with Late Sh. Anis Ahmed Rushdie (since deceased) for purchasing the suit property for a total consideration of Rs. 3.75 lacs. Out of the aforesaid amount, Late Sh. Bhiku Ram Jain had paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as earnest money. The Agreement to Sell was not performed. Accordingly, Late Sh. Bhiku Ram Jain and his two sons [Narender Kumar Jain and Arvind Kumar Jain - appellants in FAO(OS) No.22/2020] filed the suit for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell being CS(OS) No.994/1977. Although, Narender Kumar Jain and Arvind Kumar Jain were not parties to the Agreement to Sell, they were arrayed as plaintiffs no.2 and 3 in the subject suit ostensibly for the reason that in terms of the Agreement to Sell, the suit property was required to be conveyed to Late Sh. Bhiku Ram Jain or his nominees. And, it was averred in the plaint that Sh. Bhiku Ram Jain had nominated Narender Kumar Jain and Arvind Kumar Jain for execution of the sale deed.

8. During the pendency of the said suit, Sh. Anis Ahmed Rushdie expired and his legal heirs were brought on record.

9. The subject suit [CS(OS) No.994/1977] was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs (Late Sh. Bhiku Ram Jain and his two sons Narender Kumar Jain and Arvind Kumar Jain) by a judgment dated 05.10.1983. In terms of the said decree, the plaintiffs had the right to get