Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(SC) 18506
M.R. SHAH, C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ
T.D. Vivek Kumar & Anr. – Appellant
Versus
Ranbir Chaudhary – Respondent
Civil Appeal | 2514-2516 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Guru Krishna Kumar
For the Respondents: Shri Daya Krishan Sharma
The High Court erred in granting specific performance without framing substantial questions of law, reinstating the lower court's decision to deny specific performance based on the sale agreement terms.
Headnote:(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 10 and 20 - Specific performance of contract - Appellants challenged the High Court’s order granting specific performance - The High Court had not framed substantial questions of law required under Section 100 of CPC - High Court wrongly overturned the Trial Court's decree denying specific performance - The court reinstated the original judgment, affirming the lower court's decision to award a refund of advance amount instead of specific performance. (Paras 6, 6.2, 7)
(B) Concurrent Findings - The findings regarding the respondent's readiness and willingness to perform the contract were upheld across all levels, justifying the ruling for specific performance. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
A sale agreement was entered for a specific plot with earnest money; the respondent sought specific performance after initial rejection from lower courts.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was incorrect in overriding the clear terms of the agreement and earlier judgments. The concurrent findings of facts about readiness were affirmed.
Issues: The necessity of framing a substantial question of law and whether High Court's decree for specific performance was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The lack of framing substantial questions by the High Court required intervention; the court reaffirmed the decision against specific performance based on the sale agreement terms.
Result: Appeals allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case history and appeals initiation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. argument for original defendants. (Para 3) |
| 3. response from the original plaintiff. (Para 4) |
| 4. court's consideration of judgment validity. (Para 6) |
| 5. final ruling on appeals. (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGEMENT
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Review Application No. 149- C/2016 in RSA No. 596/2012 and XOBJC - Digitally signed by Neetu Sachdeva Date: 2023.04.28 16:27:27 IST Reason:
- Signature Not Verified 10C/2010, the original defendants have preferred the present appeals.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals are as under: -
2.1 That a “sale agreement” was entered into between appellant No. 1 as attorney of appellant No. 2 (original defendants) and the respondent herein (original plaintiff) for sale of the suit plot in question for a consideration of Rs. 17,61,700/-. The date for execution and registration of sale deed was tentatively fixed as 18.09.2004. A total amount of Rs. 2 lakh was paid as earnest money by the respondent. That thereafter, respondent – original plaintiff instituted the civil suit in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, seeking specific performance of sale agreement and consequential relief of injunction. The suit was resisted by the appellants herein – original defendants on all grounds including the ground that even as per the agreement to sell and on failure of the defendants to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff shall be entitled to double the amount given as an advance and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree for specific performance.
2.2 The learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.01.2010 refused to pass a decree for specific performance of the sale agreement, however, decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 4 lakhs i.e., double of the earnest money paid by the plaintiff in accordance with the contract i.e., sale agreement.
2.3 The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court refusing to grant the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement, the respondent herein – original plaintiff preferred the second appeal before the High Court. The appellant(s) also filed the cross objection in the second appeal on the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. By the impugned judgment and order dated 27.07.2016 the High Court allowed the second appeal by way of overturning the concurrent judgments of the learned Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court and consequently, granted the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement by observing that as the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and therefore, he is entitled to the decree for specific performance. The High Court dismissed the cross objection preferred by the appellants – original defendants.
2.4 That aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.07.2016 passed by the High Court allowing the second appeal and dismissing the cross objection, the appellants herein preferred Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.
32215-32216/2016 before this Court. The appellants were relegated to file a review petition before the High Court as according to the appellants the High Court did not consider the relevant clauses of the sale agreement which as such were considered by the learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.
2.5 That thereafter, the appellants filed the present Review Application No.
