Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 28101
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MARY JOSEPH, J
SHOBHA.V.S. – Appellant
Versus
ANNA PETER – Respondent
RFA NO. 399 OF 2014 | CO NO. 123 OF 2014 | O.S NO.504/2007
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.SHANKAR V
SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA
For the Respondents: SMT.R.BINDU
SRI.HARISH GOPINATH
SRI.JOHNSON JOSE PANJIKKARAN
SRI.R.S.KALKURA
SRI.M.S.KALESH
SRI.K.KURIAN KOSHY
SMT.A.V.PRIYA
SRI.SANIL KUNJACHAN
The court denied specific performance due to greater hardship on the defendant, emphasizing the necessity of addressing comparative hardships in suits for specific performance.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 and Section 22 - Specific performance - Agreement for sale claimed by the plaintiff was disputed by the defendant on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation - Court found the hardships caused to the defendant greater than those to the plaintiff, thus denying the relief - Procedure regarding the amendment for relief sought was also discussed. (Paras 3-4, 9-12, 50-51)
(B) Judicial Discretion - Court has the discretion to deny specific performance even if legally valid due to inequity and hardship considerations, ensuring that both parties have opportunity to present evidence related to these issues. (Paras 45-46)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff alleged the existence of an agreement for sale concerning a property, with Rs.3,25,000/- paid as earnest; the defendant contested, claiming misrepresentation and asserting the non-existence of the agreement.
Findings of Court:
The original suit was dismissed by the court below; the Appeal Court observes that hardship on the defendant was not properly considered, leading to remand for fresh hearings.
Issues: Whether the suit is maintainable and whether specific performance can be decreed.
Ratio Decidendi: It is insufficient to prove mere legal claim; the court must also consider the implications of enforcement and balance of hardships.
Result: Appeal and Cross Objection allowed; case remanded for fresh examination.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the original suit and agreement (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. defendant's argument against the agreement (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. issues raised in court (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. plaintiff's grievances about court decisions (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. details of amendments sought by the plaintiff (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. arguments regarding the amendments to the plaint (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. further arguments from both parties (Para 14 , 15) |
| 8. relevant case laws cited by the plaintiff (Para 16 , 19 , 20) |
| 9. judiciary discretion in granting specific performance (Para 21 , 22) |
| 10. arguments regarding the burden of proof (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 11. criteria for granting specific performance (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 12. general principles regarding specific agreements (Para 29 , 30) |
| 13. importance of independent witnesses and contractual obligations (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 14. further arguments on evidence and burden of proof (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 15. analysis of the evidence and the court's reliance (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 16. court's observation on comparative hardships (Para 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 17. conclusions on inequity and the need for additional evidence (Para 45 , 46 , 47) |
| 18. final ruling and directions for remand (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
MARY JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R.F.A. No. 399 of 2014 &
C.O No.123 of 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 09th day of May, 2023
This appeal is originated from a judgment dated 06.03.2014 of IInd Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram (for short 'the court below') in O.S.No.504/2007. The Original Suit was filed by the appellant before the court below seeking for specific performance of an agreement for sale.
2. The parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant in accordance with their status before the court below.
3. It was averred in the plaint that by virtue of an agreement for sale executed among the defendant with the plaintiff, plaint B schedule property which is a portion of plaint A schedule property obtained by the defendant by virtue of a Will bearing No.55 of 1969 of SRO Thiruvananthapuram and a release deed bearing No.1990 of 1992 of SRO Pattam was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.7,00,000/-. Rs.3,25,000/- was received on the date of execution of the agreement for sale itself as earnest money. Plaint B schedule property has an extent of 1 cent from the road to the property belonging to the plaintiff. The time stipulated in the agreement for payment of balance sale consideration of Rs.3,75,000/- and for getting the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff was five months from the date on which the agreement was executed. Though the plaintiff was always ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration to the defendant and to meet the expenses for execution of the sale deed, the latter preferred a petition before Kerala Women's Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, against the plaintiff's husband on 18.06.2007 alleging that the defendant has never executed an agreement for sale in favour of the plaintiff and seeking to get the alleged agreement for sale returned. The plaintiff was informed by the defendant that she is not willing to perform her part of the contract. Thereupon, a petition was filed by the plaintiff before the Museum Police Station and for the reason that the issue involved is of civil nature, the petition was closed. Thereafter, a lawyer notice was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant on 03.07.2007 seeking for compliance of the terms and conditions in the agreement for sale. A reply notice was sent by the defendant to the plaintiff on 09.07.2007 stating that she is not bound to comply with the terms. In the said context the filing of a suit seeking for a direction to the defendant to execute a sale deed in respect of B schedule property on accepting the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,75,000/- within a time period specified by the court was necessitated. A decree for permanent p
