2005 Supreme(MP) 638
2006(2) JLJ 170
A.M. Naik, J.
Gyaneshwar v. Smt. Moongabai @ Muneshwaribai and another
First Appeal No. 91 of 1989: against the judgment and decree passed
by the I Additional District Judge, Balaghat,
in Civil Suit No. 24-A of 1988;
Decided on 24.6.2005.
P.R. Bhave with Satyendra Patel for appellant;
Pranay Verma for respondent No.2.
Headnote:(1) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- Ss. 22 and 16 -- out of Rs. 65,000/-, Rs.10,000/- paid as earnest money -- rest of the amount neither paid nor deposited in Court -- not entitled to a decree for specific performance.
The plaintiff, on 22.6.1985 instituted a suit for specific performance in respect of an immovable property in the nature of house and plot situated in the district of Balaghat. The property belonged to Kunwarlal, which was inherited by the defendants Moongabai and Parwatibai, both being his widows. Both widows entered into an agreement for sale of suit property to the appellant plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 65,000/-. Out of this amount, Rs. 10,000/- were received by defendants No.1 and 2 and the balance amount was liable to be paid at the time of execution of the registered sale-deed. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff had been residing in the suit property during the lifetime of Kunwarlal. Possession of suit property with the plaintiff was‘ acknowledged by the defendants No.1 and 2, in the capacity of prospective purchaser. Since one of the rooms comprised in the suit property was occupied by one Harish Kumar Nagpure, the same continued in the occupation of the said Harish Kumar Nagpure with the consent of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2. The plaintiff, in the month of September 1984, asked the defendant No. 1 to receive the balance amount and execute the registered sale-deed in his favour, in respect of the suit property. Since they were close relatives, the plaintiff trusted the defendant No.1 that she would execute the registered sale-deed in future. However, it is contended that the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance amount of consideration and get the sale-deed executed in his favour. On 9.5.1985, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1 was going to sell the suit property in favour of one Jaiswal. The plaintiff submitted an application before the Sub-Registrar, Balaghat, with a prayer that the defendant No.1 may not be permitted to alienate the property in favour of a third person on account of earlier sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff later on came to know that defendant No. I has sold the suit property to the younger brother of Chhedilal Jaiswal vide registered sale-deeds dated 9.5.1985 and 10.5.1985. The plaintiff contended that Ghanshyam Jaiswal, who was imp-leaded as defendant No.3, was aware of the earlier agreement dated 28.6.1984 and was not a bona fide purchaser. Accordingly, the plaintiff has prayed for decree for specific performance against defendant No.1. The plaintiff has further prayed for declaration that the sale-deeds executed by defendant No. 1 are not binding on him. In the alternative, plaintiff has prayed for refund of consideration amount paid as advance, with interest. [Para 2
The learned trial Judge, after recording the evidence, ultimately dismissed the suit for specific performance and granted a degree for refund of Rs. 10,000/-, without interest. Aggrieved by the same the plaintiff-appellant has preferred the present appeal. [Para 5
Held: The readiness and willingness for the purpose of seeking a decree for specific performance implies monetary potential to pay the consideration and mental preparedness to perform the part under the contract. The plaintiff-appellant having failed to discharge this burden, is not entitled to a decree for specific performance. (1995)5 SCC 115 followed. [Para 14
(2) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- Ss. 20 and 22 -- vendor stating that there was no urgency for money -- period mentioned because of purchaser‘s desire -- time not essence of contract. AIR 1997 SC 1751 followed. AIR 1991 Del. 315 relied on. [Para 13
(3) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- S. 3, Expl. II -- purchaser relied upon assertion of vendor or on his own knowledge and abstained from making enquiry -- cannot escape from consequences of deemed notice of third party‘s possession. [Para 9
(4) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- S. 19(17) -- Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 52 -- provision under S. 1 9(b) of the Act --protects bona fide purchaser in good faith for value -- S. 52 of the Code -- emphasises due care and attention for good faith. (2000)6 SCC 402 followed. [Para 9
(5) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -- S. 53A -- subsequent transferee -- can retain benefit of his transfer. which he has on right to get, after satisfying two conditions -- he must have paid find amount and he must have paid it in good faith without notice or prior contract. AIR 1968 Mad. 383 relied on. [Para 9
(6) Transfer of Property Act, 1882.-- Ss. 3 Expl. II and 53A -- burden of proof of good faith and lack of notice of prior agreement -- is upon subsequent purchaser. 1994(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 77, 1982 MPWN 294 and 1997(1) MPWN 291 relied on. [Para 10
(7) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- Ss. 20 and 22 -- grant of decree for specific performance -- is discretionary -- plaintiffs not found entitled to the decree due to conduct -- decree rightly refused. AIR 1997 SC 2328 followed. AIR 1990 Ker. 177 relied on. [Para 15
(8) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- S. 22 -- earnest money returned -there should be reasons for refusal of interest thereon -- interest awarded till realisation. [Paras 16 & 17
¼1½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 22 rFkk 16 && #- 65]000@& esa ls #- 10]000@& vfxze /ku ds :i esa lanÙk && ‘ks"k jde u rks lanÙk] u U;k;ky; esa fuf{kIr && fofufnZ"V ikyus ds fy, fMØh dk gdnkj ughaA
oknh us 22-6-1985 dks ftyk ckyk?kkV esa fLFkr edku vkSj Hkw&[kaM ds :i esa LFkkoj laifÙk ds laca/k es fofufnZ"V ikyu ds fy, okn lafLFkr fd;kA laifÙk dq¡oj yky dh Fkh tks izfroknh ew¡xkckbZ vkSj ikoZrhckbZ nksuksa us mldh fo/kok gksus ds dkj.k fojklr esa izkIr dh FkhA nksuksa fo/kokvksa us #- 65]000@& ds izfrQy ds fy, oknxzLr laifÙk vihykFkhZ&oknh dks foØ; djus dk djkj fd;kA bl jde esa ls izfroknh Ø- 1 vkSj 2 }kjk #- 10]000@& izkIr fd, x, rFkk ‘ks"k jde jftLVªhd`r foØ;&foys[k fu"ikfnr fd, tkus ds le; lanÙk dh tkuk FkhA okni= esa ;g vkSj dgk x;k gS fd oknh dq¡ojyky ds thoudky ds nkSjku oknxzLr laifÙk esa jg jgk FkkA Hkkoh Øsrk dh gSfl;r esw oknxzLr laifÙk ij oknh dk dCtk izfroknh Ø-1 vkSj 2 }kjk vfHkLohdkj fd;k x;k FkkA D;kasfd oknxzLr laifÙk dk ,d dejk fdlh gjh‘k dqekj ukxiqjs ds vf/kHkksx es Fkk] oknh rFkk izfroknh Ø- 1 vkSj 2 dh lgefr ls og mDr gjh‘k dqekj ukxiqjs ds vf/kHkksx esa cuk jgkA 1984 ds flracj ekl esa oknh us izfroknh Ø-1 ls ‘ks"k jde ysus vksj oknxzLr laifÙk ds laca/k esa mlds i{k esa jftLVªhd`r foØ;&foys[k fu"ikfnr djus dks dgkA D;ksafd lg fudV ds ukrsnkj Fks] oknh us izfroknh Ø- 1 vkSj 2 dh lgefr ls og mDr gjh‘k dqekj ukxiqjs ds vf/kHkksx esa cuk jgkA 1984 ds flracj ekl esa oknh us izfroknh Ø-1 ls ‘ks"k jde ysus vksj oknxzLr laifÙk ds laca/k esa mlds i{k esa jftLVªhd`r foØ;&foys[k fu"ikfnr djus dks dgkA D;ksafd og fudV ds ukrsnkj Fks] oknh us izfroknh Ø-1 dk Hkjkslk fd;k fd og Hkfo"; esa jftLVªhd`r foØ;&foys[k fu"ikfnr djsxhA rFkkfi ladFku fd;k x;k gS fd oknh izfrQy dh ‘ks"k jde lanÙk djus vkSj vius i{k esa foØ;&foys[k fu"ikfnr djkus ds fy, rS;kj vkSj jtkean FkkA 9-5-1985 dks oknh dks Kkr gqvk fd izfroknh Ø- 1 fdlh tk;loky ds i{k ess oknxzLr laifÙk dk foØ; djus tk jgh gSA oknh us mi&jftLVªkj] ckyk?kkV ds le{k bl izkFkZuk lfgr vkosnu fd;k fd oknh ds i{k esa iwoZrj foØ; djkj ds dkj.k izfroknh Ø-1 dks ijO;fDr ds i{k esa laifÙk vU;& laØkfer djus dh vuqKk ugha nh tk,A rFkkfi ckn esa oknh dks Kkr gqvk fd izfroknh Ø-1 us jftLVªhd`r foØ;&foys[k fnukad 9-5-1985 vkSj 10-5-1985 }kjk Nsnhyky tk;loky ds vuqt dks oknxzLr laifÙk foØ; dj nh gSA oknh us ladFku fd;k fd ?ku‘;ke tk;loky dks] ftls izfroknh Ø-3 ds :i esa la;ksftr fd;k x;k] iwoZrj djkj 28-6-1984 dk Kku Fkk vkSj og ln~Hkkfod Øsrk ugha gSA rnuqlkj] oknh us izfroknh Ø- 1 fo#) fofufnZ"V ikyu ds fy, fMØh dh izkFkZuk dh gSA oknh us bl ?kks"k.kk ds fy, vkSj izkFkZuk dh gS fd izfroknh Ø-1 }kjk fu"ikfnr foØ;&foys[k ml ij vkc)dj ugha gSA vuqdYi esa] oknh us vfxze ds :i esa lanÙk izfrQy dh jde C;kt lfgr izfrnk; fd, tkus dh izkFkZuk dh gSA ¿ iSjk 2À
fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;k/kh‘k us lk{; vfHkfyf[kr djus ds i‘pkr~ fofufnZ"V ikyu ds fy, okn varr% [kkfjt dj fn;k vkSj C;kt ds fcuk #- 10]000@& ds izfrnk; ds fy, fMØh iznku dhA blls O;fFkr gks dj oknh&vihykFkhZ us izLrqr vihy dh gSA ¿ iSjk 5À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fofufnZ"V ikyu ds fy, fMØh dh bZIlk ds iz;kstu ds fy, rS;kjh vkSj jtkeanh ls izfrQy lanÙk djus ds fy, /kuh; {kerk vkSj lafonk ds v/khu vius Hkkx dk ikyu djus ds fy, ekufld rS;kjh foof{kr gSA oknh&vihykFkhZ bl Hkkj dk fuoZgu djus esa foQy jgus ds dkj.k fofufnZ"V ikyu ds fy, fMØh dk gdnkj ugha gSA ¼1995½ 5 ,l lh lh 115 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 14À
¼2½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 20 rFkk 22 && foØsrk dk dFku fd /k dh vR;ko‘;drk ugha Fkh && vof/k Øsrk dh bPNk dkj.ko‘k mfYyf[kr && le; lafonk dk lkj ughaA , vkb vkj 1997 ,l lh 1751 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1991 fnYyh 315 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 13À
¼3½ laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 && /kkjk 2 Li"Vhdj.k 2 && Øsrk us foØsrk ds izk[;ku dk ;k viuh tkudkjh dk voyac fy;k && vkSj iwNrkN ugha dh && ijO;fDr ds dCts dh le>h xbZ lwpuk ds ifj.kkeksa ls ugha cp ldrkA ¿ iSjk 9À
¼4½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 19¼[k½ && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 52 && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 19¼[k½ ds v/khu mica/k && ewY; ds fy, ln~Hkkfod Øsrk dk laj{k.k djrk gS && lafgrk dh /kkjk 52 esa && ln~Hkkouk ds fy, lE;~d lko/kkuh vkSj /;ku ij cy fn;k x;k gSA ¼2000½6 ,l lh lh 402 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 9À
¼5½ laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 && /kkjk 53d && ijorhZ varfjrh && nks ‘krsZa iwjh djus ds i‘pkr~ vius varj.k dk Qk;nk] ftls izkIr djus dk mls vf/kdkj ugha gS] lqjf{kr j[krk gS && mlds }kjk laiw.kZ jde lanÙk dh xbZ gks vkSj mlus og iwoZrj lafonk dh lwpuk ds fcuk ln~HkkoiwoZd lanÙk dh gksA , vkb vkj 1968 enzkl 383 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 9À
¼6½ laifÙk varj.k vf/kfu;e] 1882 && /kkjk 3 Li"Vhdj.k 2 rFkk 53d && ln~Hkkouk dh fo|ekurk vkSj iwoZrj djkj dh lwpuk ds vHkko ds lcwr dk Hkkj && ijorhZ Øsrk ij gSA 1994 ¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 77] 1982 e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 294 rFkk 1997 ¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 291 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 10À
¼7½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 20 rFkk 22 && fofufnZ"V ikyu ds fy, fMØh dk iznku && oSosfdd gS && oknh vkpj.k ds dkj.k fMØh dk gdnkj ugha ik;k x;k && fMØh ds iznkku ls Bhd&gh bUdkj fd;k x;kA , vkb vkj 1997 ,l lh 2328 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1990 dsjy 177 voyafcrA ¿ iSjk 15À
¼8½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 22 && vfxze /ku ykSVk;k x;k && ml ij C;kt ukeatwj djus ds fy, dkj.k gksuk pkfg, && C;kt] olwyh rd vf/kfu.khZrA ¿ iSjk 16 ,oa 17À
1. The present appeal arises out of dismissal of suit for specific performance by the Court of First Additional District Judge to the Court of District Judge, Balaghat, vide judgment and decree dated 26.4. 19989, passed in Civil Suit No. 24A/88.
2. The plaintiff on 22.6.1985, instituted a suit for specific performance in respect of an immovable property in the nature of house and plot situated in the district of Balaghat. The property belonged to Kunwarlal, which was inherited by the defendants Moongabai and Parwatibai, both being his widows. Both widows entered into an agreement for sale of suit property to the appellant-plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 65,000/-. Out of this amount, Rs. 10,000/- were received by defendants No.1 and 2 and the balance amount was liable to be paid at the time of execution of the registered sale-deed. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff had been residing in the suit property during the lifetime of Kunwarlal. Possession of suit property with the plaintiff was acknowledged by the defendants No.1 and 2. in the capacity of prospective purchaser. Since one of the rooms comprised in the suit property was occupied by one Harish Kumar Nagpure, the same continued in the occupation of the said Harish Kumar Nagpure with the consent of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2. The plaintiff, in the month of September 1984, asked the defendant No.1 to receive the balance amount and execute the registered sale-deed in his favour, in respect of the suit property. Since they were close relatives, the plaintiff trusted the defendant No.1 that she would execute the registered sale-deed in future. However, it is contended that the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance amount of consideration and get the sale-deed executed in his favour. On 9.5.1985. the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.1 was going to sell the suit property in favour of one Jaiswal. The plaintiff submitted an application before the Sub-Registrar, Balaghat, with a prayer that the defendant No.1 may not be permitted to alienate the property in favour of a third person on account of earlier sale agreement in favour of the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff later on came to know that defendant No.1 has sold the suit property to the younger brother of Chhedilal Jaiswal vide registered seedbeds dated 9.5.1985 and 10.5.1985. The plaintiff contended that Ghanshyam Jaiswal, who was imp-leaded as defendant No.3, was aware of the earlier agreement dated 28.6.1984 and was not a bona fide purchaser. Accordingly, the plaintiff has prayed for decree for specific performance against defendant No.1. The plaintiff has further prayed for declaration that the sale-deeds executed by defendant No.1 are not binding on him. In the alternative, plaintiff has prayed for refund of consideration amount paid as advance, with interest.
3. Defendants No. 1 and 3 submitted their separate written statements and denied the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 has stated that Kunwarlal was maternal uncle of the plaintiff and had no issue from both the aforesaid wives. She denied the factum of alleged agreement of sale for consideration of Rs.65,000/- and has further denied the receipt of Rs.10,000/- as part of consideration. She further contended that the plaintiff was liable to pay the balance amount of consideration of Rs.55,000/- by first week of October, 1984 and was liable to get the sale deed executed positively by this time, because the time was essence of the contract. She stated that the plaintiff was not possessed of the balance money and was not ready and willing to purchase the suit property. So, the alleged 'sale agreement stood cancelled automatically on account of failure on the part of the plaintiff to comply with the sale agreement. The suit property has been validly sold to defendant No.3 by registered sale deeds. She further stated that the plaintiff was trying to grab the suit property because the defendant