C. HARIDASAN versus ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA KURUP & OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 244 · Decided: 13-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
C. HARIDASAN
v.
ANAPPATH PARAKKATTU VASUDEVA KURUP & OTHERS
(Civil appeal no. 4072 of 2022)
JANUARY 13, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 : ss. 10, 16(c), 20 – Discretion as to
decreeing specific performance – On facts execution of the
agreement to sell land between the parties and receipt of
consideration by the appellant-buyer – Balance amount to be paid
within six months provided the respondent-seller made available
the document of title and purchase certificate after measuring the
property – Thereafter notice served by the appellant to the
respondent to execute the sale deed – Refusal of the respondent to
execute the sale deed and cancelled the agreement – Suit for specific
performance of the agreement to sell by the appellant – Trial court
allowed the suit and also directed the appellant to pay 25% more
amount, over and above the agreed consideration – High Court
while considering s. 20, set aside the decree for specific performance
and directed the respondent to pay the consideration amount to the
appellant – On appeal held: In view of difference of opinion, matter
referred to the larger bench – Reference to larger Bench.
Referring *the matter to larger Bench, the Court
HELD :
PER M. R. SHAH, J.
1.1. It was never the case on behalf of the defendants in
the written statement and/or even before the trial court that the
agreement to sell was inequitable and/or was a forced agreement
to sell. Even the trial court also did not frame the issue, “whether
agreement to sell was a forced agreement to sell/contract or not”.
   [2023] 3 S.C.R. 244
244
Ed. Note : Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna
pronounced separate reportable judgments of the Bench comprising Their Lordships.
In view of difference of opinion in the matter it was directed to place the papers before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders for constituting a larger Bench
to decide the controversy.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
245
On appreciation of entire evidence on record, the trial court after
recording the findings on the execution of the agreement to sell
by the defendants and receipt of part sale consideration and that
the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of
the contract, decreed the suit for specific performance. The High
Court, as such, has not commented upon and/or set aside any of
the findings recorded by the trial court, recorded while passing a
decree for specific performance. Straightway, the High Court
considered Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and observed
and held that by enhancing the amount of sale consideration, the
trial court has wrongly exercised the discretion in favour of the
plaintiff. The High Court commented upon the order passed by
the trial court enhancing the amount of sale consideration and
directing the plaintiff to pay more amount than the sale
consideration mentioned in the agreement to sell. [Para 6][257-
A-E]
1.2 The trial court directed the plaintiff to pay some more
amount than the amount mentioned in the agreement to sell, at
the most, the plaintiff can be said to be aggrieved. Still, the High
Court considered such an order passed by the trial court against
the defendants. As such, the trial court was absolutely justified in
compensating the defendants by paying some more amount while
passing a decree for specific performance. Therefore, in the facts
and circumstances of the case and more particularly when the
trial court exercised the discretion in favour of the plaintiff after
having observed and recorded the findings on the execution of
the agreement to sell by the defendants and that the part sale
consideration was paid by the plaintiff which was accepted by the
defendants and thereafter the finding that the plaintiff was always
ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the trial
court was absolutely justified in passing the decree for specific
performance. The High Court has erred in interfering with the
judgment and decree passed by the trial court, without setting
aside the findings recorded by the trial court recorded while
passing the decree for specific performance. The impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable,
both, on law as well as on facts, and is quashed and set aside and
the judgment and decree passed by the trial court for specific
performance of agreement to sell is restored. However, to do
C. HAR

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