SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(SC) 799

G.S.SINGHVI, V.GOPALA GOWDA
I. S. SIKANDAR – Appellant
Versus
K. SUBRAMANI – Respondent


JUDGMENT

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

Leave granted.

2. This civil appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.12.2008 passed in Regular First Appeal No. 97 of 2001 by the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore, urging certain relevant facts and legal contentions, whereby the High Court has reversed the judgment and decree passed in the Original Suit No. 2012 of 1985 dated 25.09.2000 by the X1th Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City, Bangalore and has modified the decree by allowing the appeal, granting the decree for specific performance of the Agreement of Sale in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff in relation to the suit schedule property. Further, it has granted the decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the respondent No.1/plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

3. Necessary facts and legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties are stated herein with a view to find out as to whether the impugned judgment and decree in granting the relief of specific performance of the sale of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff requires to be set aside by allowing this app




























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

None of the cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly criticized as bad law based solely on the provided list. The list contains references to cases that have been cited, distinguished, or relied upon in subsequent judgments, but no clear indication of invalidation or overrule is evident from the keywords or phrases such as "overruled," "reversed," or "criticized."

However, there are multiple references where subsequent decisions have distinguished or noted differences from the Sikandar case (2013) 15 SCC 27, which suggests that the treatment of the Sikandar case has been subject to clarification and elaboration rather than outright overrule.

Many references (e.g., Gajendran VS Thangavel - 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 3463, Challapalli Venkateswara Rao VS Meka Gangadhara Rao - 2017 0 Supreme(AP) 519, H. S. Om Prakash VS Anjani Ranjit - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2779, A. Murugan VS Rainbow Foundation Ltd, Anoop Chand Jain, Chennai - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2325, J. Thomas VS S. Karuppusamy - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 1134, Mahaveer Hemanth Bhandhari and Sons VS P. Srinivasalu - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 1049, M. Chinnaiyan VS Kasthuri Radhakrishnan - 2020 0 Supreme(Mad) 413, S.R.K.Jayachandran (Died) vs B.Bhaskaran (Died) - 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 4961, G. Banumithra VS T. Santhakumar - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3772) indicate reliance on or citation of the Sikandar case (2013) 15 SCC 27, suggesting it continues to be considered good law and authoritative in relevant legal contexts.

Several entries explicitly mention that the Sikandar case has been followed or applied in subsequent judgments (Anand Madanmohan Jaiswal VS Pratibha - 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1522, Patabandula Prabhavathi VS Katragadda Chandra Sekhar Sekhar Babu - 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 1448, L R Ananth VS S Jayaramachandran - 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 516, Ravindra Shantinath Chougule VS Mahesh Arjunsa Kalpavruksha @ Mirajkar - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 102, Lalchand Sharma, S/o N.R. Sharma vs R. Chandramurthy, S/o A. ramaiah - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 690, Keshav Mansing Salunkhe VS Nitin Prabhakar Bhagawat - 2024 0 Supreme(Bom) 302, Manisha w/o. Balkrushna Kode VS Madanlal S/o. Uttamchand Desarda - 2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 1328, Iska Vijaya Kumar Reddy vs N.Vijaya Krishna - 2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3442, K. Prabakaran VS S. Boopathi - 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 2139, K.Prabakaran vs S.Boopathi - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 69827, R. Kandasamy (Since Dead) VS T. R. K. Sarawathy - 2024 8 Supreme 684, Sangita Sinha VS Bhawana Bhardwaj - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 593, Ramathal VS K. Rajamani (Dead) through LRs. - 2023 7 Supreme 508, Mohinder Kaur VS Sant Paul Singh - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1089, H. Anwar Khan VS G. Ravi Kumari - 2017 0 Supreme(AP) 845, P. V. Chowdary VS Lingala Narasanna - 2018 0 Supreme(AP) 433, H. Anwar Khan VS G. Ravi Kumari - 2017 0 Supreme(AP) 845, Challapalli Venkateswara Rao VS Meka Gangadhara Rao - 2017 0 Supreme(AP) 519, Patabandula Prabhavathi VS Katragadda Chandra Sekhar Sekhar Babu - 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 1448, Iska Vijaya Kumar Reddy vs N.Vijaya Krishna - 2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 3442, B.C.Parimala, Wife of S.Prasanth vs Puttalingaiah, Son Of Late Kapani Gowda - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20782, Lalchand Sharma, S/o N.R. Sharma vs R. Chandramurthy, S/o A. ramaiah - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 690, Ravindra Shantinath Chougule VS Mahesh Arjunsa Kalpavruksha @ Mirajkar - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 102, L R Ananth VS S Jayaramachandran - 2024 0 Supreme(Kar) 516, Lalchand Sharma, S/o N.R. Sharma vs R. Chandramurthy, S/o A. ramaiah - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 690, Ravindra Shantinath Chougule VS Mahesh Arjunsa Kalpavruksha @ Mirajkar - 2022 0 Supreme(Kar) 102, B.C.Parimala, Wife of S.Prasanth vs Puttalingaiah, Son Of Late Kapani Gowda - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 20782) indicating that the case remains a binding or persuasive authority.

Several entries mention the case in the context of legal principles such as maintainability, termination, and specific performance, further reinforcing its continued relevance.

Multiple references (e.g., A. Murugan VS Rainbow Foundation Ltd, Anoop Chand Jain, Chennai - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2325, H. S. Om Prakash VS Anjani Ranjit - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2779, S.R.K.Jayachandran (Died) vs B.Bhaskaran (Died) - 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 4961, G. Banumithra VS T. Santhakumar - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 3772, Mahaveer Hemanth Bhandhari and Sons VS P. Srinivasalu - 2024 0 Supreme(Mad) 1049) note that the facts or circumstances of subsequent cases differ from Sikandar, and thus the judgment has been distinguished. This shows that courts are aware of the Sikandar case but are applying different legal reasoning in different factual contexts.

For example, A. Murugan VS Rainbow Foundation Ltd, Anoop Chand Jain, Chennai - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 2325 states that the Sikandar case "would not be applicable to the facts," indicating a clear distinction.

Several entries (e.g., Bal Vir Sehgal VS Sanjay Bansal - 2016 0 Supreme(P&H) 39, Ashok Kumar VS Purshottam Bansal - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 418, Nirmal Singh VS Vijay Kumar Bansal - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 1454, Jagjit Singh VS Satbir Singh - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 4508, Suksham Lata @ Kusum Lata And Another VS Jagdish Ram - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 4645, Kulwinder Singh And Another VS Saurabh Singh And Others - 2019 0 Supreme(P&H) 2017, Shiv Charan VS Rupesh Kumar - 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 2437) refer to the case or judgment in passing or as part of a broader discussion without explicit treatment like follow or distinguish. Their exact treatment (whether they uphold, criticize, or merely cite Sikandar) is not clearly indicated, making their treatment ambiguous.

The references that mention reliance or citation without further elaboration (e.g., Durga Education Society VS Shakti Pictures Circuit Ltd. - 2018 0 Supreme(Chh) 16, Manas Kumar Rai s/o. Late Shri Baleshwar Rai VS Gargi Devi Verma widow of late Shri Janak Ram Verma - 2019 0 Supreme(Chh) 1116, SHIRIS KUMAR GUPTA VS KESHAV PRASAD SINHA - 2019 0 Supreme(Chh) 747, Saurabh Agrawal S/o Shri Ramanand Agrawal VS Vipin Kumar Jha S/o Late Prabhat Kumar Jha - 2022 0 Supreme(Chh) 54, Kushal Infraproject Industries India Ltd VS Dalel Singh - 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 1667, Dharampal Satyapal Limited VS Sanmati Trading And Investment Ltd - 2020 0 Supreme(Del) 1200) leave room for ambiguity about whether they treat Sikandar as good law or merely cite it as authority.

The case Lajwanti And Another VS Mohan Singh And Others - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 4050 states that the suit was "not maintainable" based on the rescission, which could suggest a critical or negative treatment, but without explicit language, it remains uncertain whether this is a direct overruling or a different factual conclusion.

In summary, the dominant pattern is that Sikandar (2013) 15 SCC 27 continues to be cited, followed, and distinguished, but there is no explicit evidence from the list to suggest it has been overruled or reversed. The treatment is primarily that of continued reliance with some factual distinctions.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top