Back
1993 Supreme(MP) 490
1994 JLJ 309
A.R. Tiwari, J.
Sampatbai v. Rameshhandra and others
F.A. No. 46 of 1974, against the judgment and decree passed by Shri A.C.
Dalani, IIIrd Additional District Judge, Ujjain, in civil suit No.7-A of 1971;
Decided on 19.8.1993.
S.D. Sanghi for appellant; S.L. Garg with Suresh Garg for respondents.
Headnote:(1) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- S. 16 -- prospective vendee sending notices and also publishing public notice in newspaper indicating his readiness to comply with the terms of contract -- Court would take into account these factors in his favour. [Para 21
(2) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- S. 20 -- Court finding agreement valid and prospective vendee willing and ready -- also concluded that vender and subsequent purchaser had notice of the agreement -- Court should exercise its jurisdiction to decree the claim as filed. AIR 1979 SC 1241 followed. AIR 1990 Delhi 42 relied on. [Para 25
(3) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- S. 19 (b) -- subsequent purchaser not found to be bonafide -- living in the same locality -- he should have the knowledge of prior agreement to sell -- cannot take shelter of this provision -- general rule is that the decree of specific performance should be passed even against subsequent purchaser. AIR 1934 PC 68 relied on. AIR 1972 SC 1520 followed. [Paras 31 to 34
(4) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- S. 19 (b) -- subsequent transferee not able to show his bonafide and lack of knowledge of the prior agreement to sell -cannot escape from the liability of specific performance. 1958 JLJ 845 relied on. [Para 36
(5) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- Ss.19 and 16 -- legal title of subsequent owner and equitable title of prospective purchaser -- law is capable to choose genuine one. AIR 1973 SC 2457 followed. [Para 43
(6) Court -- money deposited in Court -- interested party should apply to keep the same infixed deposit. [Para 47
¼1½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 & /kkjk 16 & Hkkoh Øsrk }kjk lafonk ds fuca/kuksa dk vuqikyu djus ds fy, mldh rS;kjh n‘kkZrs gq, lwpuk nh xbZ rFkk lekpkji= esa Hkh yksd lwpuk çdkf‘kr dh xbZ & U;k;ky; bu dkjdksa dks mlds Ik{k esa ysrs gq, fopkj djsxkA ¿iSjk 21
¼2½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 & /kkjk 20 & U;k;ky; }kjk djkj fof/kekU; rFkk Hkkoh Øsrk jtkean vkSj rS;kj ik;k x;k & ;g fu"d"kZ Hkh fudkyk x;k fd foØsrk rFkk Ik‘pkrorhZ Øsrk dks djkj dh lwpuk Fkh & U;k;ky; dks Qkby fd, x, nkos dh fMØh ikfjr djus ds fy, mldh vf/kdkfjrk dk ç;ksx djuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1979 ,l lh 1241 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1990 fnYyh 42 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 25
¼3½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 & /kkjk 19 ¼[k½ & Ik‘pkrorhZ Øsrk ln~Hkkoh ugha ik;k x;k & mldh ifj{ks= dk fuoklh & mls iwfoZd foØ; ds djkj dh tkudkjh gksuh pkfg, & bl mica/k dk vkJ; ugha ys ldrk & lkekU; fu;e gS fd fofufnZ"V ikyu dh fMØh Ik‘pkrorhZ Øsrk ds fo#+) Hkh ikfjr dh tkuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1934 ih lh 68 voyafcrA , vkb vkj 1972 ,l lh 1520 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 31 ls 34
¼4½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 & /kkjk 19 ¼[k½ & Ik‘pkrorhZ varfjrh }kjk viuh ln~Hkkouk vkSj foØ; djus ds iwfoZd djkj dh vufHkKrk nf‘kZr ugha dj ldk & fofufnZ"V ikyu ds nkf;Ro ls cp ugha ldrkA 1958 ts ,y ts 845 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 36
¼5½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 & /kkjk 19 rFkk 16 & Ik‘pkrorhZ Lokeh dk fof/k gd rFkk Hkkoh Øsrk dk lkE;kiw.kZ gd & fof/k vlyh pquus ds fy, l{ke gSA , vkb vkj 1973 ,l lh 2457 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 43
¼6½ U;k;ky; & /ku U;k;ky; esa fuf{kIr & fgrc) Ik{kdkj }kjk mls fu;rdkfyd fu{ksi esa j[ks tkus ds fy, vkosnu fy;k tkuk pkfg,A ¿iSjk 47
A.R. Tiwari, J.--1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of M.A No. 77/76 (Sampatbai v. Rameshchandra and others).
2. This appeal, presented under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'Code') is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.2.74 rendered by the third Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Ujjain in C.O.S. No. 7-A/71, thereby granting a decree of specific performance of the contract as regards the suit-house situated at Khachrod.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the house, bearing Municipal No. 33, situated in Derji Ward Khachrod and bounded by the periphery as details in para 1 of the plaint, was owned by Shankarlal and Ramchandra (Respondents No.3 and 4). They entered into an agreement to sell on 7.2.71 with Rameshchandra and Shravankumar (Respondents No.1 and 2) on consideration of Rs. 11,201/- after paying the advance of Rs. 1,000/- and promising the documentation of sale within two months from the date of this agreement. The respondents No.1 and 2 pleaded that the respondents No.3 and 4 avoided the performance of this agreement despite several demands and eventually sold this house to the appellant vide sale-deed dated 27.4.71 (Ex. D/4). They asserted that they had been and are still ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, but the respondents No.3 and 4 and the appellant acted in collusion to defeat and destory the rights of the respondents No.1 and 2. They, therefore, filed the civil suit against the erstwhile owners (Respondents No. 3 and 4) and the appellants Sampatbai (subsequent purchaser) claiming the specific performance of the contract. The respondents No.3 and 4 opposed the claim on the ground that the breach was committed by the respondents No.1 and 2 and they did not discharge their obligation, being not possessed of requisite money. They asserted that they were in dire need of money due to the marriage of their sister and as such were required to sell the house even on lesser amount to the appellant. The appellant disputed the liability and contended that she was a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of the previous contract. On evaluation of the evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance on deposit of the money i.e. Rs. 10,201/- in the Court. The appellant was also directed to lose her title acquired by sale-deed and to join in the sale-deed ordered to be executed in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2. As far the aforesaid money, the Court directed that the question is left to be sorted out between the respondents No.3 and 4 and the appellant. The appellant thus, was made to loss title without being paid any consideration on that basis.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the subsequent purchaser has filed this first appeal. As far as the respondents No. 3 and 4 are concerned, they opted to remain non-chalant against the decree and did not assail the same in this Court.
5. I have heard Shri S.D. Sanghi, learned Sr. Counsel, with Shri N.K. Sanghi and Shri S.L. Garg, learned Sr. Counsel with Shri Suresh Garg, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2. None appeared for the respondents No.3 and 4 I have also perused the records carefully.
6. Shri Sanghi strenuously submitted that the decree, permitting contract to prevail over sale, was erroneous in law; unsupportable under section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, and was surely subvertible and, in particular, urged the under noted points in oppugnation-a) The trial Court misdirected itself in passing the decree of specific performance and anaesthetizing legal title, though acquired after the expiry of the period (7.4.71) fixed for performance of the previous contract, and misappreciated facts and misapplied the law.
b) The trial Court erred in concluding that the appellant was not a bonafide purchaser and that she did not fall in the category of 'exception' envisaged under Sec. 19 (b) of the Specific Relief Act.
c) The tri
