Supreme Court Bench Delivers Split Verdict In Civil Appeal From Specific Performance Suit

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna delivered a split verdict in a civil appeal arising out of a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale. Brief Facts leading to the Civil Appeal with its Judicial HistoryThe brief facts leading to the Civil Appeal are that the plaintiff and the defendants had entered into an agreement to sell dated 07.08.2005 under which the defendants agreed to sell their land for a consideration of Rs. 8,750/- per cent. The plaintiff paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as advance towards the part sale consideration amount. This amount was 4% of the total consideration amount. The balance consideration was agreed to be paid by the plaintiff within six months from the date after measuring the property provided the defendants make available the documents of title including the purchase certificate under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. However, the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 02.11.2006 upon the defendants to execute the sale deed to which the defendants sent a reply and refused to execute the sale deed and cancelled the agreement to sell. Therefore, the appellant, in the civil appeal before the top court, had instituted a Suit before the trial Court for specific performance of agreement to sell and in the alternative return of the plaintiff’s amount with interest.Terms and conditions of the Agreement(a) The plaintiff was obligated to measure the property at his own expense; (b) Prepare the deeds with respect to the plaint schedule property in favour of himself or in favour of his nominees; (c) The balance consideration was to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants within six months from the date of agreement.The agreement also stipulated that the defendants were to: (a) Handover the above-mentioned deeds as also the anterior documents, possession certification, tax receipt and encumbrance certificate for the last thirteen years, purchase certificate, either in their originals or certified copies to the plaintiff; (b) On receipt of the balance sale consideration the parties were to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within six months.Larger Arguments before the Trial Court It was denied by the defendants that the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It was also submitted that the suit was filed after one year from the date of expiry of the agreement. It was specifically argued that the defendant No.1 was a heart patient and he had undergone the surgery on which huge amount was spent which was borrowed from others and therefore to clear off the said liability, the defendants agreed to sell the property in question. The defendants also argued that even though they had approached the plaintiff to pay some more money, the plaintiff was not prepared for the same, thereby the defendants had been compelled to sell gold ornaments and clear their liabilities.Decision Of The Trial Court The trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 07.08.2005. However, at the same time and to do complete justice between the parties, the trial Court directed the plaintiff to pay 25% more amount, over and above the agreed consideration amount. The learned trial Court also directed the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration within a period of two months.Decision of the High CourtFeeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal before the High Court. Without upsetting the findings recorded by the trial Court on execution of agreement to sell dated 7.8.2005; payment of part sale consideration and the other issues held in favour of the plaintiff, straightway the High Court considered Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and opined that the trial Court was not justified in enhancing the sale consideration and ought not to have exercised the discretion in favour of the plaintiff. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court, while relying upon and/or considering Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, set aside the decree of specific performance.Arguments put forth by the Appellant Plaintiff before the Supreme CourtThe Appellant, who is also the Original Plaintiff, put forward a five point submission before the top court. 1. That as per the conditions mentioned in the agreement to sell, the balance sale consideration was required to be paid within a period of six months form the date after measuring the property provided the defendants make available the documents of title including the purchase certificate under Kerala Land Reforms Act, which was yet to be obtained. 2. That even the purchase certificate was issued by the Government during the pendency of the suit. 3. That enhancement of the sale consideration by the learned trial Court could not have been read against the plaintiff. 4. That the relief could not be denied on the ground of insufficiency of sale consideration in...

Supreme Court Bench Delivers Split Verdict In Civil Appeal From Specific Performance Suit

Anurag Tiwary

Tags