A. RAMA RAO AND ORS. versus RAGHUNATH PATNAIK AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 527 · Decided: 24-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A. RAMA RAO AND ORS. 
v. 
RAGHUNA TH PA TNAIK AND ORS. 
APRIL 24, 2007 
[DR.ARiflTPASAYAT ANDS.H. KAPADIA,JJ.] 
Notice-unregistered agreement for sale of suit property between 
plaintiff and one defendant-Plaintiff came to know that defendant entering 
A 
B 
into agreement with other two defendants in respect of the same property- C 
Notice by the plaintiff by post to all the defendants regarding subsistence of 
earlier agreement-Refusal to accept-Suit for specific performcnce of earlier 
agreement-Absence of specific plea regarding dispatch of the notice by post 
and/or its refusal-Courts below passing decree of specific performance 
holding that in view of the refusal, knowledge about earlier agreement to the D 
defendants could be inferred-On appeal, held: The finding regarding refusal 
to accept the notice is vague-Several pleas in respect of the issue had not 
been considered by Courts below-Direction to High Court to record its 
finding on the question of service of notice and on the effect of the absence · 
of specific plea regarding dispatch of notice or its refusal-The findings to 
be placed before Supreme Court. 
E 
Respondent No. 1-Plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of 
contract against the appellant defendant no.1. It was alleged therein that there 
was unregistered agreement for alienation of the suit property in favour of 
the plaintiff by defendant No. 1. When the plaintiff came to know that despite 
the earlier agreement, defendant No.1 wanted to sell the suit property to F 
defendant Nos. 2 and 3, he sent notice to the defendants by post intimating 
about the subsistence of the earlier agreement. The notices returned unserved 
on their refusal. Trial Court decreed the suit and single Judge of High Court 
dismissed the appeal thereagainst holding that once there was refusal to 
receive the notice, it is presumed that the defendants had notice of the earlier G 
agreement. In Writ appeal, Division Bench of High Court also concurred with 
the finding of the courts below. 
In appeal to this court, appellants contended that in absence of 
examination of postman it was not permissible to draw an inference of refusal; H 
527 
528 
..;.;.,,._ 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 5 S.C.R. 
A and that there was no specific plea regarding dispatch of notice by post and/ 
J 
or its refusal. 
Adjourning the matter, with direction to High Court to place its finding 
on certain questions before this court, the Court. 
B 
HELD: 1. The conclusions of the High Court on the issue of refusal to 
accept the notice claimed to have been sent by registered post, is rather vague. 
The High Court has merely concluded that all other points have been 
considered by Single Judge. But it has been brought on record that effect of 
a decision of this Court had not been considered though specifically argued. 
The pleas that when the defendant No.I on oath stated that h~ di<! not receive 
C the notice allegedly sent by post, the same would prevail over the postal 
remarks that it was "refused" unless the postman was examined; and that 
there was no specific averment regarding sending the notice by post or its 
refusal, had not been considered. [Paras 8 and 9) [530-G, H; 531-A) 
D 
2. High Court is directed to record its findings on the question of service 
E 
F 
of notice and also the effect of the absence of any definite and specific plea 
regarding dispatch of notice by post and/or its refusal after granting 
opportunity to the parties to place their respective stand. [Para 11) [531-D-E) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5130 of2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.2001 of the High Court of 
Orissa in A.H.O. No. 96of1995. 
Vinoo Bhagat and Rut••ik Panda for the Appellants. 
R.L. Khurana, M.C. Dhingra and Sanjay Jain for the Respondents. 
·The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJlT PASA VAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment 
rendered by a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court dismissing the Letters 
G Patent Appeal filed by the appellants. 
' 
A 
2. A brief reference to the factual aspects would be necessary in view 
~ • 
of the order proposed to be passed. 
3. The suit which forms the subject matter of controversy in the presen't 
H appeal was one for specific performance of contract filed by respondent No. I-
A. RAMARAOv. RAGHUNATHPATNAIK [PASAYAT,J.] 
529 
Raghu Nath Patnaik as the sole plaintiff. 
4. In the suit it was contended that on 7.11.1983 defendant No.I executed

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.