DHARMABIRI RANA versus PRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 10 S.C.R. 122 · Decided: 05-10-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2017] 10 S.C.R. 122 
DHARMABIRI RANA 
v. 
PRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9906 of2010) 
OCTOBER 05, 2017 
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
Specific performance: Suit for specific performance of 
agreement to sell property - Denial c~f title by defendant - Held: 
The Court can order specific performance of (/fl agreement only 
when it is proved that a person allegedly executing an agreement to 
sell has right of transferring the property - When defendants deny 
their entitlement and right, title and interest in the suit property, the 
said question is necessary to be answered before decreeing tlze 
suit - In the instant case, the trial court after noticing tlze said 
D pleading on behalf of the defendants did not enter into this question 
or returned any finding as to ownership of the suit property - It 
was not proved that any power of attorner was executed so as to 
enable defendant no.2 to enter into agreement to sell and further 
the execution of agreement was also not proved - Although, copy 
E of alleged power of attorney was filed by appellant before this Court 
but both the Courts having not considered the same, it was not 
necessary for this Court to consider the same in this appeal - Suit 
was rightly dismissed by first appellate court - No inteiference called 
for. 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.9906 
of2010. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 19 .07 .2005 passed by 
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in R.S.A. No.171 of 2005. 
Rakesh Khanna, Sr. Adv., Dr. L. S. Chaudhary, Ajay Chaudhary, 
G Ms. Rakhi Tomar, Anurag Tomar, Parambir Singh, Viresh Chaudhary, 
Ms. Man ju Jetley, Ad vs. for the Appellant. 
H 
P. N. Gupta, Ms. Bharti Gupta·, Manish Aggarwal, Ms. Runal 
Rastogi, Advs. for the Respondents. 
Respondent (in-person). 
122 
DHARMABIRI RANA v. PRAMOD KUMAR SHARMA (D) 
123 
THR. LRS. & ANR. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
A 
ASH OK BHUSHAN, J. This Civil Appeal by the plaintiff has 
been filed against the judgment of High Court of Delhi dated 19.7.2005 
dismissing the Regular Second Appeal of the appellant. Brief facts of 
the case necessary to be noted for decidin'g this Civil Appeal are:-
(a) 
The parties shall be referred to as described in the plaint. The 
plaintiff filed Suit No. 541 of 1990 praying for specific 
performance of a contract dated 04.01.1987. Plaintiff's case in 
the plaint was that defendant No. 2 representing himself to be 
power of attorney holder of defendant No. 1, his brother, entered 
B 
c 
into •in agreement to sell dated 04.01.1987 for a plot of land 
measuring 150 sq. yds. for a consideration of Rs.60,000/-. 
Rs.5,000/- was paid by the plaintiff towards earnest money to 
defendant No.2. Plaintiff claims that possession was also handed 
over. Or. 07.01.1987, the terms of the agreement to sell were 
moJ;fied by enhancing the consideration from Rs.60,000/- to 
Rs.65,000/-. Plaintiff claimed to approach the defendant No.2 
D 
on 25.01.1987 for execution of Sale Deed, which was declined 
by defendant No.2 on the pretext of his brother having gone 
abroad and so defendant No.2 refused to accept the balance 
consideration. The defendant No:2 and his father when sought 
to dispossess the plaintiff of the suit property, a suit was filed for 
Permanent Injunction against defendant No.2 and his father. On 
the above pleading, suit was filed for specific performance of 
the contract. 
E 
(b) 
Written Statement was filed both by defendant Nos. I and 2. 
Defendant No.1, in his written statement, pleaded that he is 
neither the owner of the suit property nor entered into an 
agreement with the plaintiff. The agreements dated 04.01.1987 
and 07.01.1987 were denied. It was pleaded that defendant NO. I 
having no right, title or interest of any nature in the suit property, 
there is no question of him acting in any manner to transfer the 
F 
G 
suit property to the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 in his written 
statement denied execution of agreement dated 04.01.1987. It 
was further denied that defendant No. 1 is the owner of the 
property. It was further denied that defendant No.2 is the 
attorney of defendant No.1. Alleged original agreement dated 
04.01.1987 as well as modified agreementdated 07.01.1987 were 
H 
124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 10 S.C.R. 
A 
also denied. It was pleaded that defendant No.2 is neither the 
owner of the suit property nor attorney. Oral evidence was also 
led by the plaintiff and def
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.