IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that rescission of a decree for specific performance under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act requires clear evidence of default, and that genuine miscalculations do not automatically lead to rescission.

ORDER :

Prayer in CRP (NPD) No. 2177 of 2019: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Fair and Final order dated 30.04.2019 made in E.A. No. 25 of 2018 in E.A. No. 27 of 2017 in E.P. No. 73 of 2015 in O.S. No. 40 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Puducherry.

Prayer in CRP (NPD) No. 2179 of 2019: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Fair and Final order dated 30.04.2019 made in E.A. No. 27 of 2017 in E.P. No. 73 of 2015 in O.S. No. 40 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Puducherry.

1. These revisions arise against an order passed in an application filed under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act.

2. The parties will be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants for the sake of convenience.

Facts leading to the revision:

3. The plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the defendants for the purchase of the suit schedule mentioned property. The agreed price was Rs. 32,000/- per kuzhi and an advance of Rs. 10,00,000/- was paid on 18.12.2006. The total sale consideration agreed upon between the parties was Rs. 1,25,98,000/-. A written agreement was entered into between the parties on 18.12.2006.

4. Despite several negotiations and mediations, the plaintiff and the defendants could not enter into a sale deed. A suit for specific performance came to be filed on 13.04.2009 and the said suit was taken on file in O.S. No. 40 of 2009 on the file of the learned third Additional District Judge at Pondicherry. Pending the suit, the third defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as the defendants 6 and 7. After receipt of the written statement and a detailed trial, the suit was decreed directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 1,15,98,000/- (less Rs. 10,00,000/- already paid) to the credit of the suit. This suit was decreed on 20.11.2014.

5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.11.2014, an appeal was filed before this Court in A.S. No. 367 of 2015. The appeal was dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2017. Thereafter, the matter was brought before the Court by the defendants/appellants under the caption “for being mentioned.”

6. This Court on hearing both the parties, modified the judgment on 13.07.2017 directing as follows:

“For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed. However, the plaintiff/1st respondent is directed to pay 6% interest per annum on the sale consideration, from the date fixed for performance of the contract under the sale agreement viz. 10.02.2007 till the date of deposit. The said amount has to be deposited by the plaintiff/1st respondent, after adjusting the amount that has already been deposited before the Court below, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. In the meantime, the appellants/defendants are permitted to withdraw the amount already deposited by the plaintiff from the Trial Court. No costs.”

7. On the basis of the decree passed by this Court on 22.06.2017 and as modified by this Court on 13.07.2017, a memo was filed before the Court below on 02.08.2017. In the said memo, the following calculations were given:

Memo of Calculation