BASAVARAJ versus PADMAVATHI & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 231 · Decided: 05-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
231
BASAVARAJ
v.
PADMAVATHI & ANR.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8962-8963 of 2022)
JANUARY 05, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Specific performance – Suit for specific performance –
Respondent No.1 executed agreement to sell dated 13.03.2007 in
favour of appellant-buyer agreeing to sell the land in question on
or before 31.07.2007 for a sale consideration of Rs.12.74 lakhs -
Rs. 3 lakhs were paid as earnest money – Respondent No.1 however
did not execute the sale deed – Appellant-buyer filed suit for specific
performance on 14.02.2008 – Trial court decreed the suit – High
Court set aside the judgment of trial court, mainly on ground that
appellant–plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of
the contract – Held: On facts, the High Court materially erred in
reversing the findings of the trial court on readiness and willingness
of the appellant – Reasoning given by the High Court was that
plaintiff had not proved that he had cash and/or amount and/or
sufficient funds/means to pay the balance sale consideration, as no
passbook and/or bank accounts was produced – However, in view
of law laid down by Supreme Court in Indira Kaur and Ramrati Kuer
cases, unless the plaintiff was called upon to produce the passbook
either by the defendant or, the Court ordered him to do so, no adverse
inference could have been drawn by the High Court – Judgment of
High Court therefore unsustainable – However, for complete justice,
appellant to pay to respondent no.1 a further sum of Rs.10 lakhs
and on such payment, respondent no.1 to execute sale deed in favour
of appellant.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, the High Court materially erred in reversing the decree by
reversing the findings of the Trial Court on readiness and
willingness of the appellant. [Para 6][238-F]
231
[2023] 1 S.C.R. 231
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
232
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
2.1. It appears that the reasoning given by the High Court
is that the plaintiff has not proved that he had the cash and/or
amount and/or sufficient funds/means to pay the balance sale
consideration, as no passbook and/or bank accounts was
produced. [Para 6.1][238-G]
2.2. However, in the case of Indira Kaur, this Court after
considering the observations made by this Court in the case of
Ramrati Kuer set aside the findings recorded by three courts
below whereby an adverse inference had been drawn against the
plaintiff therein for not producing the passbook and thereby
holding that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his
part of the agreement. It was observed and held that unless the
plaintiff was called upon to produce the passbook either by the
defendant or, the Court orders him to do so, no adverse inference
can be drawn. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid two cases to the facts of the case on hand, no adverse
inference could have been drawn by the High Court. The High
Court seriously erred in reversing the findings recorded by the
Trial Court on the readiness and willingness of the appellant.
[Para 6.2 and 6.3][239-F-H; 240-A]
3. The impugned judgment passed by the High Court is
unsustainable. However, at the same time, to do complete justice,
the plaintiff is directed to pay to defendant No. 1 a further sum of
Rs. 10 lakhs and on such payment, defendant No. 1 is directed to
execute the sale deed in favour of the original plaintiff – appellant.
[Para 7][240-B-C]
Indira Kaur and Ors. v. Sheo Lal Kapoor, (1988) 2 SCC
488 and Ramrati Kuer v. Dwarika Prasad Singh,  (1967)
1 SCR 153 – relied on.
Beemaneni Maha Lakshmi v. Gangumalla Appa Rao,
(2019) 6 SCC 233 : [2019] 7 SCR 490; J.P. Builders
and Anr. v. A. Ramadas and Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 429 :
[2010] 15 SCR 538 and U.N. Krishnamurthy v. A.M.
Krishnamurthy, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 840 – referred
to.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
233
Case Law Reference
(1988) 2 SCC 488
Para 3.6
relied on
[2019] 7 SCR 490
Para 3.6
referred to
(1967) 1 SCR 153
Para 3.8
relied on
[2010] 15 SCR 538
Para 4.4
referred to
2022 SCC OnLine SC 840
Para 4.4
referred to
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 8962-
8963 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2021 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Kalaburagi Bench in RP No.200036 of 2021 and dated
27.11.2020 in R.F.A. No.5033 of 2011 (SP).
K. Parmeshwar, Nishanth Patil, Ayush P. Shah, Advs. for the
Appellant.
Shailesh Madiyal, Rajan Parmar, Mrigank Prabhakar, Ms. Sakshi
Banga, Akshay Kumar, Advs. for the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.