Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2017 Supreme(SC) 1010

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. Agrawal, Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
Nadiminti Suryanarayan Murthy(Dead) through LRs. – Appellants
Versus
Kothurthi Krishna Bhaskara Rao & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5517 of 2007
Decided On : 09-10-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Manjeet Kirpal, Syed Ahmed Naqvi, Advs.
For the Respondents:- Ms. D. Bharathi Reddy, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
When the agreement is genuine and the purchaser has paid advance money and has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, he would be entitled to specific performance of the agreement.

Headnote:(a) Administration of justice – Genuineness of documents – Defendants 1 to 5 entering into an agreement with plaintiff on 18.01.1983 for sale of house for Rs.46000 and accepting advance money of Rs.1000 – On being pressed for specific performance of the agreement Defendants 1 to 5 producing another agreement dated 04.01.1983 with Defendant no. 6 and a sale deed based on that agreement for Rs.45000– Defendants no. 1 to 5 having entered into agreement with Defendant no. 6 earlier in point of time should not have entered into agreement with plaintiff for sale of the same house – Division Bench of the High Court and the trial court rightly holding the earlier agreement bogus and not genuine. (Para 17, 18, 19)
       (b) Specific Reliefs Act – Section 16 (C) – Plaintiff paying advance money at the time of agreement – Sale deed to be executed within six months, i.e., July 1983 – Defendants executing sale deed with defendant no. 6 on 09.02.1983 – Breaching the agreement with plaintiff – Plaintiff sending notice to defendants 1 to 5 for executing sale deed which they did not do – Court below rightly granting relief of specific performance to the plaintiff. (Para 22, 26)
       (c) Specific Relief Act – Section 16 r/w Article 142, Constitution of India – Defendants 1 to 5 held liable to execute sale deed with plaintiff – Sale deed with defendant 6 held bad – Defendant 1 to 5 directed to refund the consideration amount to defendant 6. (Para 31)
       AIR 1954 SC 75 – Relied upon
       (d) Lis pendence – Suit house changing hands during pendency of instant litigation – Of no consequence – Hit by doctrine of lis pendence. (Para 33)
       Facts of the case:
       One Surya Narayana was the owner of a house. He died in 1980 leaving behind his wife (defendant No.1) and daughters (defendant Nos. 2 and 3) and grand children (defendant Nos. 4 and 5). He left a will in favour of his wife giving her life interest. She, therefore, got the suit house. These defendants claiming to be the co-owners of the suit house then let out the suit house to defendant No. 6 in 1981 on monthly rent of Rs. 150/-.
       On 18.01.1983, defendant Nos. 1 to 5 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff (respondent No.1) for sale of the suit house in his favour for a sum of Rs. 46,000/-. The plaintiff accordingly paid Rs. 1000/- as advance money to defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and the balance amount was to be paid by the plaintiff to defendant Nos. 1 to 5 at the time of the registration of the sale deed, which was to be executed within six months. The plaintiff (respondent No. 1) accordingly arranged for the balance money. However, defendant Nos. 1 to 5, on the other hand, went on promising the plaintiff to execute the sale deed in his favour as agreed upon between them as per agreement dated 18.01.1983 and on the other hand, defendant Nos. 1 to 5, instead of executing a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, executed the sale deed on 09.02.1983 in favour of defendant No. 6 for Rs. 45000/-.
       The plaintiff filed a civil suit on 14.07.1983 for specific performance of agreement dated 18.01.1983 and in alternate for refund of consideration paid by the plaintiff and also for the damages sustained by the plaintiff.
       The Trial Court decreed the plaintiff's suit and passed the decree for specific performance in relation to the suit house directing the defendants to execute the sale deed in plaintiff's favour on accepting Rs. 45,000/- from the plaintiff.
       Defendant No. 6 filed first appeal before the High Court which was allowed.
       However this order was reversed by the Division Bench and decree passed by the trial court was restored.
       Finding of the Court:
       Trial court and the Division Bench rightly decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff.
       Result: Appeal disposed of.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

This appeal is filed by original defendant No.6 against the final judgment and order dated 11.07.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in L.P.A. No. 121 of 1998 whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and order dated 02.02.1996 in Appeal No. 2061 of 1989 and upheld the judgment and decree dated 13.09.1989 passed by the subordinate Judge, Amalapuram in O.S. No.50 of 1983 thereby decreeing the plaintiff's (respondent No.1 herein) suit against defendant No.6 (original appellant herein) for specific performance of agreement in relation to the suit house.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy raised in the appeal, it is necessary to state the relevant facts hereinbelow.

3. Nadiminti Suryanarayan Murthy-the original appellant herein (since dead and represented now by the present appellants as his legal representatives) was defendant No.6 whereas respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff and original respondent No.2 (defendant No.1), since dead and represented through legal heirs (defendant Nos.2-3) whereas Respondent Nos.3-4 are defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in the suit out of which this appeal arises.

4. One Surya Narayana was the owner of a house situated in village Amalapuram in Andhra Pradesh (described in detail in schedule appended to the plaint - hereinafter referred to as "suit house"). He died in 1980 leaving behind his wife (defendant No.1) and daughters (defendant Nos. 2 and 3) and grand children (defendant Nos. 4 and 5). He left a will in favour of his wife giving her life interest. She, therefore, got the suit house. These defendants claiming to be the co-owners of the suit house then let out the suit house to defendant No. 6 in 1981 on monthly rent of Rs. 150/-.

5. On 18.01.1983, defendant Nos. 1 to 5 entered into an agreement with the plaintiff (respondent No.1) for sale of the suit house in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 46,000/-. The plaintiff accordingly paid Rs. 1000/- as advance money to defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and the balance amount was to be paid by the plaintiff to defendant Nos. 1 to 5 at the time of the registration of the sale deed, which was to be executed within six months. The plaintiff (respondent No. 1) accordingly arranged for the balance money. However, defendant Nos. 1 to 5, on the other hand, went on promising the plaintiff to execute the sale deed in his favour as agreed upon between them as per agreement dated 18.01.1983 and on the other hand, defendant Nos. 1 to 5, instead of executing a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, executed the sale deed on 09.02.1983 in favour of defendant No. 6 for Rs. 45000/-.

6. This gave rise to filing of the civil suit by the plaintiff (respondent No. 1) on 14.07.1983 against all the six defendants in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram out of which this appeal arises. The suit was for specific performance of agreement dated 18.01.1983 and in alternate for refund of consideration paid by the plaintiff and also for the damages sustained by the plaintiff.

7. The plaintiff inter alia averred that he was and has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement and, in fact, performed his part by paying advance amount of Rs. 1000/- in terms of the agreement to defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and was/is always ready and willing to pay the balance consideration at the time of registration of sale deed. It was averred that even before expiry of six months' period, which was to expire in July 1983, defendant Nos. 1 to 5 sold the suit house to defendant No. 6 on 09.02.1983 itself and thus committed breach of agreement dated 18.01.1983 by not performing their part of the agreement by executing the sale deed in plaintiff's favour and hence the suit to seek specific performance of agreement dated 18.01.1983 for execution of the sale deed in relation to the suit house and, in alternative, for refund of money paid to defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and for damages for the loss suffered.

8. Defendant Nos.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2017 Supreme(SC) 1010

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAR.K. Agrawal, Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.Nadiminti Suryanarayan Murthy(Dead) through LRs. – AppellantsVersusKothurthi Krishna Bhaskara Rao & Ors. – RespondentsCivil Appeal No. 5517 of 2007Decided On : 09-10-2017

IMPORTANT POINTWhen the agreement is genuine and the purchaser has paid advance money and has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, he would be entitled to specific performance of the agreement.

Cases Referred (1)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. Agrawal, Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
Nadiminti Suryanarayan Murthy(Dead) through LRs. – Appellants
Versus
Kothurthi Krishna Bhaskara Rao & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5517 of 2007
Decided On : 09-10-2017

IMPORTANT POINT
When the agreement is genuine and the purchaser has paid advance money and has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement, he would be entitled to specific performance of the agreement.