Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA & V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.
PEMMADA PRABHAKAR & ORS. - APPELLANTS
Vs.
YOUNGMEN’S VYSYA ASSOCIATION & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7835 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) NO. 24653 OF 2012)
Decided on: 20-08-2014
A.I.R. 1971 AP 279; (1996) 5 SCC 589; (1976) 1 SCC 194 – Referred
(b) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 17 – Breach of contract – Plaintiff not making payments to defendants as agreed – Breaching terms of contract – Agreement cannot be enforced. (Para 32)
(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 20(2) – Plaintiffs not approaching trial court with clean hands – Not entitled to specific performance. (Para 33)
(d) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 100 – Whether the agreement was executable was a substantial question of law – High Court failing to consider it – Judgment vitiated. (Para 33)
(e) Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 22 – Court disallowing claim of plaintiffs – However as they had paid Rs.15000 to defendants, they are entitled to some compensation – Defendants also agreeing – Sum of Rs.6,00,000/- by lump-sum amount of compensation awarded to plaintiffs. (Para 35)
Facts of the case:
The ‘suit schedule property’ was the self acquired property of one Pemmada Venkateswara Rao. He died intestate and survived by wife Syama Sundari, three sons and three daughters (the defendant Nos. 1 to 6).
The plaintiffs-the Youngmen’s Vyasa Association (the respondents herein), instituted suit for the specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated 03.05.1993 against the defendants (the appellants herein). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who are managing the suit schedule property, agreed to sell the same to plaintiff No. 1.
The trial court dismissed the suit in so far as the main relief for the specific performance of sale is concerned. The Trial Court has directed the defendants to refund Rs.5000/-with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 5.03.1993 till the date of realization and Rs.10,000/-with the interest rate at 12% p.a. from 6.08.1993 till the date of realization.
The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal partly, directing the defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff’s Association in respect of their 1/6th share each i.e. 4/6th share by receiving their respective shares of the balance sale consideration from the plaintiffs and modified the decree for specific performance of Agreement of Sale.
High Court dismissed the Second Appeal.
Finding of the Court:
It would be just and proper for this Court to award a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- by lump-sum amount of compensation to the plaintiffs within 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment as provided under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and final order dated 04.11.2011 passed in the Second Appeal No. 815 of 2011 by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, whereby the High Court has dismissed the Second Appeal.
3. Certain relevant facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating the rival legal contentions urged on behalf of the parties with a view to examine the correctness of the findings and reasons recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment.
For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment as per the rank assigned to them in the original suit proceedings.
4. The property bearing Door No. 20/42-1-9 with land measuring about 657-1/3rd sq. yards situated to the west of Vallabhai Street, Cinema Road, Kakinada (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘suit schedule property’) was the self acquired property of one Pemmada Venkateswara Rao. He died intestate and survived by wife Syama Sundari, three sons and three daughters (the defendant Nos. 1 to 6).
5. The plaintiffs-the Youngmen’s Vyasa Association (who are the respondents herein), instituted O.S.No.267 of 1995 for the specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated 03.05.1993 against the defendants (the appellants herein). The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who are managing the suit schedule property, agreed to sell the same to plaintiff No. 1.
6. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 executed the Agreement of Sale dated 03.05.1993 in favour of plaintiff No. 1 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property at the rate of Rs.575/-per sq. yard, the total consideration of which was to be fixed later after taking the actual measurement. Later on, the total land value was fixed at Rs.3,77,967/-for 657-1/3 sq. yards. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 received advance amount of Rs.5000/-and Rs.10,000/-also. Under the Agreement the plaintiff No. 1 agreed to pay Rs.1,70,000/-to the defendants within 10 days from the day of vacating the tenants from the suit schedule property. Rs.50,000/-was to be paid on 30.11.1993 and that the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/-was to be paid by 30.3.1994. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 agreed that they would obtain the signatures of their 3rd brother-the defendant No. 3 by 9.05.1993. Defendant Nos. 7 and 8 are the tenants in the sheds situated in the suit schedule property. The defendant Nos.1 & 2 stated that their sisters were married long ago therefore, they had no interest in the suit schedule property, and that they would also get the sisters’ signatures on the agreement.
7. The 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada (the Trial Court) by his judgment dated 12.7.2006 dismissed O.S. No 267/95, in so far as the main relief for the specific performance of sale is concerned. The Trial Court has directed the defendants to refund Rs.5000/-with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 5.03.1993 till the date of realization and Rs.10,000/-with the interest rate at 12% p.a. from 6.08.1993 till the date of realization.
8. The Trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, observed that as the suit schedule property is adjacent to the plaintiff’s property, taking advantage of the financial difficulties of defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiffs attempted to grab the suit schedule property and dragged the defendants to the court of law.
9. The Trial Court further held that the Agreement of Sale was not valid as the defendant Nos.3 to 6 and their mother did not give consent to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the main relief for specific performance was rejected and the defendants were directed to refund the amount of advance sale consideration to the plaintiffs with interest at the rate of 12% p.a.
10. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 12.7.2006 of the Trial Court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal being A.S. No. 269 of 2006 before the Court of 3rd Addition
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
