LexB.K. SRI HARSHA (D) BY L.R. & ANR. versus M/S BHARATH HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
r [2008] 2 S.C.R. 598 A B.K. SRI HARSHA (D) BY L.R. & ANR. -l "'" ·~ v. MIS BHARATH HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD: (Civil Appeal Nos. 6329-6330 of 2004) B FEBRUARY 8, 2008 ? (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) l:- ~ Specific Relief Act, 1963; Ss. 16 & 20: c Suit for specific performance of contract of sale of certain properties - Decreed by trial Court holding that Vendee was in adverse possession of suit property, willing to perform his part of contract and paid major portion of consideration amo_unt \ , - Appeal dismissed by High Court in exercise of power u/o. 41 r. 1 CPC - On appeal, Held: Though suit was for specific ,_ ' D performance but the trial Court recorded finding of adverse possession - Thus, triable issues involved - When triable _J,, issues involved, appeal should not be summarily dismissed/ disposed of - Issues arose were not analysed seriously by ~ ' l the High Court - Hence, matter remitted to High Court for r - E COfJSideration afresh - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. 41 r i: 1 - Appeal - Summary disposal """ Triable issue. Respondent-company filed two suits for specific performance of the contract in respect of certain properties which were allegedly agreed to be sold by the F appellants under the agreements. The validity and the ~ ~ genuineness of the agreements were not disputed before l the Trial Court. The Trial Court decreed the suits holding t that the respondent-company was always ready and ' ' willing to perform its part of the contract; that agreements G were never revoked or cancelled by the appellants at any time; that the suit for specific performance was filed within ~ the period of limitation. Since, the respondent-company was in possession of the suit property from 2.5.1974, equity lies in its favour in granting specific performance, H 598 I ' ( L B.K. SRI HARSHA (D) BY L.R. & ANR. v. MIS 599 BHARATH HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. ' ' more so, when major portion of the consideration amount A ..... -+ ..... had already been paid by the company. Appeals filed against the order of the trial Court were dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeals. Disposing of the appeals, the Court B HELD: 1.1 Single Judge of the High Court dismissed ""' the appeals in purported exercise of power under Order ~ 41 Rule 1 CPC. Though, the judgment cannot be said to ) ... be limine dismissal of the appeals, yet the manner of disposal of the First Appeals leaves much to be desired. c -.fl The suit was for specific performance and the Trial Court recorded findings about adverse possession. That being so, triable issues are involved. When triable issues are involved, the appeals should not be summarily dismissed or disposed of in the manner done. (Para - 6) [601-D, E] D ,.. 1.2 A bare reading of the High Court's judgment shows that there was no serious effort made by it to ~ analyse the various points raised. (Para - 7) [601-G] Rajeshwari v. Puran lndoria (2005) 7 SCC 60 - relied E on. 1.3 The High Court has given a finding regarding. adverse possession in a suit for specific performance. There is total non-application of mind by the High Court. The manner in which the appeals were dismissed cannot F be said to be proper. Hence, the matter is remitted to the High Court to consider the same afresh. (Para - 8, 9) [603-C, DJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6329-6330 of 2004 G ' From the Judgment and final Order dated 4.6.2003 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. No. 60812002 C/W R.F.A. No. 609/2002. K. Parasaran, S.K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar and Vijay H t 600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. .. A Kumar for the Appellants. 4: ...; B. Dutta, A.S.G. B.K. Satija and.Banamali Shukla for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. _Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court ~ismissing the First Appeals filed under Section 96 t of the~Gode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short 'CPC'). The First c Appeals were filed against the judgment and decree passed in OS No.285/1.984 and. OS No.286/1984 on the file of XXXI Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, decreeing the suit for specific performance. · 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: D Two suits were filed by the respondent, which were \. consolidated. The respondents as plainti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.