B. SANTOSHAMMA & ANR. versus D. SARALA & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 11 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 18-09-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
[2020] 11 S.C.R. 1
1
 B. SANTOSHAMMA & ANR.
v.
D. SARALA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3574 of 2009 Etc.)
SEPTEMBER 18, 2020
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Specific Performance:
Agreement for sale of suit land (300 sq. yards) – Between
appellant-vendor and respondent-vendee – For a total consideration
of Rs. 75,000/- – Rs. 45000/- out of the total consideration paid to
the vendor – Total consideration was required to be paid within 45
days from the date of agreement – Subsequent to the agreement
vendor executed a registered deed of conveyance in favour of ‘P’
in respect of 100 sq. yards out of the suit land – Suit for specific
performance by vendee – Plea of vendor that the agreement was
subject to the condition that the vendor would negotiate with ‘P’ to
get his earlier agreement with the vendor cancelled – ‘P’ was initially
not impleaded in the suit for specific performance – However, was
impleaded after expiry of limitation period – Another suit by vendee
against ‘P’ seeking declaration of agreement between vendor and
‘P’ as null and void, without impleading the vendor – Suit by ‘P’
seeking perpetual injunction against the vendee – Trial court
decreed the suit for specific performance in part, holding that the
vendee was entitled to only 200 sq. yards of the suit land and not to
the 100 sq. yards which was covered by the sale deed in favour of
‘P’ – Vendee’s suit against ‘P’ was dismissed for non-joinder of the
vendor – Ascertaining the sale consideration for 200 sq. yards to
be Rs. 50,000/- and in view that Rs. 45000/- had already been paid
to the vendor, the Court directed the vendee to pay the balance Rs.
5000/- within a stipulated time and in default, the suit was to be
dismissed – Appeal by vendor as well as the vendee – High Court
confirmed the judgment of trial court – Appeal to Supreme Court –
Held: Vendee was always ready and willing to perform and had
performed the obligations under the agreement – The vendor failed
to discharge the onus to prove that the agreement was subject to the
condition that the vendee would negotiate with ‘P’ – Vendor having
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 11 S.C.R.
accepted major part of consideration, cannot contend that the
agreement could not have been enforced in respect of 200 sq. yards
in favour of the vendee – The suit for specific performance against
‘P’ having been barred by limitation and the suit for declaration
having been dismissed for non-joinder of vendor, rights of ‘P’ over
100 sq. yard cannot be nullified – The orders of courts below do
not call for any interference.
Specific Relief Act, 1963:
s.10 (as amended w.e.f. 01-10-2018) and ss. 11(2), 14 and
16 – Specific performance in respect of contracts – Nature of –
Held: After amendment of s. 10, relief of specific  performance of a
contract is no longer discretionary – The Court is obliged to enforce
the same, subject to the provisions of ss. 11(2), 14 and 16.
s.12 – Specific performance of part of contract – Permissibility
– Held: Ordinarily the Court enforces a contract in its entirety –
But, the Court may, u/s. 12 direct the defaulting party to perform so
much part of the contract as can be performed.
Party:
Necessary party – A transferee, to whom the subject matter
of a sale agreement or part thereof is transferred, is a necessary
party to a suit for specific performance – In a suit for declaring a
document as null and void, the executant of the document in question
is a necessary party.
Pleading:
Plea of bar under Order II rule 2 CPC – Held: Is a technical
plea, which has to be pleaded and satisfactorily established – On
failure to raise such plea, court not to decide the plea suo moto –
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order II rule 2.
Suit:
Clubbing of suits – Purpose and effect of – Held: Clubbing
of suits is for the sake of convenience i.e. to save time, costs,
repetition of procedures and to avoid conflicting judgments – Such
clubbing does not convert the suits into one action – The suits retain
their separate identity.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The finding of the trial court, affirmed by the
High Court that the vendee was ready and willing to perform her
obligations under the agreement dated 21.3.1984, which is based
on evidence and supported by cogent reasons, is unexceptionable.
[Para 57][20-D-E]
1.2 The vendee paid Rs.40,000/- out of the total
consideration of Rs.75,000/- on the date of execution of the
agreement dated 21.3.

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