Page 1

JUDGMENT

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 9949-9950 OF 2014

(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.35800-35801 of 2011)

Rathnavathi & Another

Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Kavita Ganashamdas

Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1.

Leave granted.

2.

The plaintiff filed two suits, one for specific performance

of agreement and other for grant of permanent injunction in

relation to the suit house. The trial court vide common

judgment and decree dated 16.10.2001 dismissed both the

Page 2

JUDGMENT

suits. The first appellate court, i.e., the High Court, in appeal,

by impugned judgment and decree dated 08.09.2011 reversed

the judgment and decree of the trial court and decreed both

the suits in appeal, against the defendants. Being aggrieved

by the judgment and decree of the High Court, Defendants 1

and 3 have approached this Court in the instant civil appeals.

3.

The question arises for consideration in these appeals is

whether the High Court was justified in allowing the first

appeals preferred by the plaintiff, resulting in decreeing the

two civil suits against defendants in relation to suit house?

4.

In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the civil

suits, and now in these appeals, it is necessary to state the

relevant facts.

5.

For the sake of convenience, description of parties herein

is taken from Original Suit No.223/2000.

6.

Defendant no.2 is the original owner of the suit house

and defendant no.1 is the subsequent purchaser of the suit

house from defendant no.2.

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

7.

The dispute relates to a dwelling house bearing no. 351

Block no.11, Matadahalli Extension, now known as R.T. Nagar

Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as " the suit house “).

8.

The suit house was purchased by defendant no. 2 from

Bangalore Development Authority (in short “BDA”) in a

scheme. On 15.02.1989, Defendant no. 2 entered into an

agreement (Annexure-P-1) with plaintiff for sale of suit house

at a total consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/-. In terms of clause 2

of the agreement, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as

advance towards sale consideration. These facts are not in

dispute.

9.

On 07.01.2000, the plaintiff filed a civil suit being OS No.

223/2000, initially against 3 defendants for seeking

permanent injunction restraining the defendants jointly and

severally from interfering in plaintiff's possession over the suit

house. In substance, case of the plaintiff was that she entered

into an agreement on 15.02.1989 with defendant no. 2 to

purchase the suit house for Rs. 3,50,000/- and paid a sum of

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

Rs. 50,000/- to defendant no. 2 by way of advance towards the

sale consideration. Later, the plaintiff further paid the balance

consideration of Rs. 3 Lacs towards the sale price and

obtained receipts acknowledging the payment so made. It was

alleged that the plaintiff was accordingly placed in actual

physical possession of the suit house and since then she has

been in possession of the suit house. It was alleged that she

also made some improvements therein by spending money and

is paying electricity and water charges etc. It was further

alleged that the plaintiff was and has always been ready and

willing to perform her part of the agreement to get the sale

deed executed in her favour after having performed her part of

the contract. However, defendant no. 2, for the reasons best

known to her, did not execute the sale deed despite having

received the full sale consideration from the plaintiff. It was

alleged that defendant no. 1, who is a total stranger to the suit

house and having no right, title and interest in the suit house,

on 2.1.2000 visited the suit house along with defendant no. 2

4

Page 5

JUDGMENT

and some other unwanted elements and threatened the

plaintiff to dispossess her from the suit hou