Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ
Madhukar Nivrutti Jagtap & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Smt. Pramilabai Chandulal Parandekar & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5382 of 2007
Decided on : 13-08-2019
(a) Property law - Agreement - Nature of transaction - Agreement for sale - No whisper of loan or the agreement being in the nature of collateral security - Held it is an agreement for outright sale - Delivery of possession of land could not be taken as a factor decisive as regards nature of transaction. (Para 12)
(b) Administration of justice - Judicial propriety - Hair splitting of evidence - Trial court questioning the amount of consideration shown as Rs.22, 952/- when as per the agreed rate it should be Rs. 22,938.75 - Such hair splitting held baseless and unwarranted. (Para 12)
(c) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 12 and 16 - Party seeking specific relief is required to aver and prove that they were always ready and willing to perform their part of the contract - Instantly, Plaintiff issuing notice on notice on 05.04.1966 after expiry of the appointed date for execution of sale deed i.e., 23.03.1966 - Fresh agreement executed thereafter - High Court rightly held approach of appellate court holding theta plaintiff was not ready and willing, erroneous - Plaintiff is not required to continuously approach the defendant with payment or make incessant requests for performance - Plaintiff must stand with the contract and his conduct should be equitable - Instantly plaintiff filing suit within limitation - No delay. (Para 13)
(d) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 52 - Doctrine of lis pendens - Defendants/vendors selling part of suit property after filing of the suit - Such transactions hit by doctrine of lis pendens - Not adversely affecting rights of plaintiff which shall remain subject to the final outcome of the suit in question - Such sale transactions do not become illegal. (Para 13)
(e) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Findings of subordinate Courts on the nature of transaction and as regards readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs, which are of material bearing on the final determination, suffered from perversity being based on irrelevant considerations - Second appeal therefore involved substantial questions of law - High Court rightly entertaining second appeal and deciding it - However, the observations of the High Court as regards operation of doctrine of lis pendens are partly incorrect. (Para 15)
(f) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 21 and 22 - Agreement for sale on 20.09.1965 - Plaintiff paying Rs. 6,000/- as on 28.04.1966 against the sale consideration of Rs 22,951/- at the time of execution of supplementary agreement - Plaintiffs, though claiming delivery of possession, never in possession - Instead, vendor and present appellants had been in possession, present appellants for last 40 years - Plaintiffs making alternative prayer for refund of money with interest and compensation - Plaintiffs/respondent 2 awarded a lump sum of Rs. 15,00,000/-(Rupees fifteen lakh) as compensation in lieu of specific performance and in lieu of any other claim qua the land in question. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
This appeal arises out of a civil suit for specific performance of agreement for sale of agricultural land. In its judgment and decree the Trial Court declined the relief of specific performance but decreed the suit for the alternative relief of money recovery.
The First Appellate Court, while dismissing the contesting plaintiffs’ appeal, affirmed the decree of the Trial Court. However, the High Court allowed the second appeal preferred by the contesting plaintiffs and decreed the suit for the principal relief of specific performance, albeit on enhanced sale consideration with reference to the market value of the land in question.
Finding of the Court:
High court rightly entertained the second appeal and decided it.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
1. This appeal by special leave arises out of a civil suit (No. 83 of 1968) for specific performance of agreement for sale of agricultural land in Survey No. 64 admeasuring 50 acres and 39 gunthas, situated at village Gulvanchi, Taluka-North Solapur [Hereinafter referred to as ‘the suit property’ or ‘the land in question’.]. In its judgment and decree dated 13.04.1984, the Trial Court declined the relief of specific performance but decreed the suit for the alternative relief of money recovery. On 30.11.1987, the First Appellate Court, while dismissing the contesting plaintiffs’ appeal (Civil Appeal No. 546 of 1984), affirmed the decree of the Trial Court. However, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed the second appeal preferred by the contesting plaintiffs (Second Appeal No. 176 of 1988) by its impugned judgment and decree dated 01.08.2007 and decreed the suit for the principal relief of specific performance, albeit on enhanced sale consideration with reference to the market value of the land in question.
2. In order to appreciate the relevant features of this case, essentially pertaining to the reliefs claimed under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Act of 1963’.], the status and capacity of parties to this litigation may be taken note of at the outset and as follows: -
2.1. In the suit for specific performance leading to this appeal, the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 6 had been the plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 respectively. The suit was filed by them jointly with the plaintiff No. 1late Shri Chandulal Balaprasad Parandekar, who was the husband of plaintiff No. 2 (respondent No. 1 herein) and who expired during the pendency of suit. After the demise of plaintiff No. 1, the daughter of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 was taken on record as plaintiff No. 4. She is respondent No. 2 in this appeal. Therefore, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 6 of this appeal were standing in the capacity of plaintiffs (vendees).
2.2. On the other hand, the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 of this appeal had been the original defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in the suit in question. The defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 3) having expired, his legal representatives are joined as respondent Nos. 3a to 3d in this appeal. The agreements forming the subject-matter of this litigation were executed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 (vendors) in favour of the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 (vendees).
2.3 The appellants of this appeal were subsequently joined as defendant Nos. 4 to 6 in the suit in question, as being the purchasers of the suit property after filing of the suit. [As far as feasible, the parties have been referred in this judgment as per their status in the suit.]
2.4. It may also be noticed that an application (IA No. 3 of 2010) was moved in this appeal pointing out demise of respondent No. 1 (plaintiff No. 2), respondent No. 4 (defendant No. 2), and respondent No. 6 (plaintiff No. 3) with the submissions that the legal representative of the respondent No. 1 was already on record as respondent No. 2; and the legal representatives of deceased respondent Nos. 4 and 6 may be substituted on record. However, this application was rejected on 24.02.2012. On the other hand, other applications (IA Nos. 5 & 6 of 2013) for substitution of legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 5 (defendant No. 3) and for condonation of delay were granted on 05.08.2013. Be that as it may, the estate of the original contesting plaintiffs (plaintiffs Nos. 1 & 2) is duly represented by their daughter (plaintiff No. 4 -respondent No. 2 herein); and the contest in this litigation is essentially between her and the appellants (subsequent purchasers).
3. Briefly put, the relevant background aspects of the matter and respective stands of the parties had been as follows:
3.1. The plaintiffs filed the suit aforesaid with the averments that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had executed an agreement dated 20.09.1965 for sale of the suit property for a considerat
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
