DADARAO AND ANR. versus RAMRAO AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 356 · Decided: 02-11-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL, N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DADARAO AND ANR. 
v. 
RAMRAO AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 2, 1999 
B 
[B.N. KIRPAL AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] 
Contract: 
Agreement of sale-Stipulating that in the event of default by either 
C party, Rs. 500 more, in addition to payment!forejeiture of earnest money, will 
be paid by defaulting party and sale deed will not be executed-No sale 
deed exec1,1ted...,,.Pwchaser filing suit for specific performance of contract for 
sale-Meanwhile property sold to another person-Trial Court declining to 
pass decree for specific performance-Appellate Court passing the de<;ree 
and requiring the defendant to execute the sale deed-Second appeal 
dismissed by High Court-Held, in view of agreement, plaintiff not entitled 
to a decree for spei:;ific performance requiring sale deed to be qecuted-
Defendants to pay back the earnest money with interest plus Rs. 500 with 
interest~uit for specific performance. 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 176 of 
F 
1982. 
· From the Judgment and Order 8.9.~l of the Bombay High Court in 
S.A. No. 340 of 1979. 
A.K. Sanghi for the Appellants. 
, 
S.V. Deshpande for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
One Balwantrao Ganpatrao Pande owned three acres of agricultural 
G land and had entered into an agreement dated 24th April, 1969 with one 
Tukaram Devsarkar. Appellant No. 1 herein is one of the heirs of Balwantrao 
Ganpatrao Pande while the respondents herein are the successors-in-interest 
of Tukaram Devsarkar. 
H 
The said agreement, with which we are concerned in the present case, 
356 
-
DADARAO v. RAMRAO 
357 
was in the following terms: 
"Tukaram Devsarkar aged about 65, Agriculturist Rio Devsar, 
purchaser (GHENAR)· Balwantrao Ganpatrao Pande aged 76 years r/ 
o Dijadi Post Devsar, Vendor (DENAR), who hereby give in writing 
A 
that a paddy field situated at Dighadi Mouja, Survey No. 712 
admeasuring 3 acres belonging to me hereby agree to sell to you for B 
Rs.2,000 and agree to receive Rs. 1,000 from you in presence ofV.D.N. 
Sane. A sale deed shall be made by me at my cost by 15-4-1972. In 
case the sale deed is not made to you or if you refuse to accept, in 
addition of earnest money an· amount of Rs. 500 shall be given or 
taken and no sale deed will be executed. The possession of the C 
property has been agreed to be delivered at the time of purchase. This 
agreement is binding on the legal heirs and successors and assigns." 
It seems that no sale deed,. as contemplated by the aforesaid agreement, 
was executed by Balwantrao Ganpatrao Pande. Thereupon Tukararn Devsarkar 
filed a suit for specific performance on 18th July, 1974. During the pendency D 
of the suit, by sale deeds executed in September 1974 and March 1975 
appellant No. 2 herein became the owner of the land iii question. In the plaint 
··- which was filed, it was specifically stated that the agreement dated 24th 
April, 1969 contemplated that in the event of Balwantrao not executing the 
sale deed the sum of Rs. 1,000 was to be returned along with an amount of 
Rs. 500, Nevertheless, the prayer in the plaint was for a decree of specific E 
performance requiring Balwantrao to execute the sale deed and in the 
alternative a decree for return of Rs. 1,000 plus a sum of Rs. 500. 
The trial court by its judgment dated 8th July, 1977 came to the conclusion 
that though the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for specific performance of 
the contract for sale but as the jurisdiction to decree was a discretionary one F 
the interest of justice demanded that no decree for specific performance 
should be passed. In coming to this conclusion, the trial court noticed that 
Balwantrao had died and the defendants to the suit were his nephews and 
whatever property had been left by Balwantrao·had been sold by the nephews 
during the pendency of the suit. In fact it was odly appellant No. I who G 
continued to contest the suit. 
An appeal was thereafter filed by the plaintiff and the lower appellate 
court allowed the same and passed a decree for specific performance and 
required the defendants to execute the sale deed on the plaintiff depositing 
Rs. 1,000 being the balance amount of the sale consideration. The appellants H 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A thereafter filed an appeal before the High Court but the same was dismissed 
in limini. Hence the present appeal by special leave. 
The relationship between the parties has to be regulated by the terms 
of the agreement bet

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