DHEERAJ DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED versus DR. OM PRAKASH GUPTA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 29 · Decided: 23-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 29 
DHEERAJ DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED 
v. 
DR. OM PRAKASH GUPTA AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No.1672 of2016 etc.) 
FEBRUARY 23, 2016 
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.) 
Specific Performance - Suit for specific performance -
Dismissed by trial court - Decreed by High Court in first appeal -
A 
B 
On appeal, held: High Court decreed the suit only on the basis of C 
finding on genuineness of a document, while several other aspects 
of the mat/er including the a~pect of readiness and willingness also 
required consideration -Appeals allowed and remitted lo High Court 
for hearing afresh. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : CIVIL APPEAL No. 
16720F2016 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.07. I 2 in FA No. 174 of 
2005 dated 28.09.2012 in RP No. 305 of2012 dated 28.09.2012 in RP 
No. 174 of2005 passed by the High Coui1 ofM.P. at Gwalior 
C.A.No.1673of2016 
& 
WITH 
C.A. No. 1674-1675 of2016 
D 
E 
A.K. Srivastava, Vivek K. Tankha, Sr. Advs., Sushi I Kumar Jain, 
F 
Puneet Jain, Ms. Christi Jain, Abhinav Gupta, Manu Maheshwari, Apurv 
Taran, Ms. Pratibha Jain, B.K. Satija, Talha Rahman, Nish it Agrawal, 
M. ShoebAlam, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Varun Thakur, Ms. Shraddha 
Saran, Shankar Divate, Harsh Parashar, Vaibhav Srivastava, Sachin Pujari, 
S.S. Khanduja, Ms. Meenakshi Kalra, Yash Pal Dhingra, Vikrant Yadav, 
G 
Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, C.D. Singh, Tapan Trivedi, Advs., for the appearing 
parties. 
The Judg_ment of the Court was delivered by 
KURIAN, J. I. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 
29 
H 
30 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
2. Delay condoned. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
3. Leave granted. 
4. By the impugned judgment, the High Court in First Appeal, 
against the judgment dated 8'" April, 2005 in Civil Suit No. 93A/l 996 
(renumbered Civil Suit No. 20A/200 I; 6A/2003) on the file of the Vlll 
Additional District Judge, Gwalior, reversed the decree for specific 
performance. 
5. The Trial Court had framed the following issues:-
S. No 
ISSUE 
CONCLUSION 
I. 
Whether 
defendant 
No.I 
executed Unproved 
agreement to sell of suit land in favour of 
plaintif!S in the year 1975? 
2. 
Whether defendant No. I had executed fresh Unproved 
agreement to sell of suit land in favour of 
plaintif!S Oil 15.1.1989 as prices of suit land 
had risen md a mutual compromise had 
arrived between plaintiffs and defendant 
No.I? 
3. 
Whether plaintiffs are entitled to get the sale No 
deed of suitland 5 Bigha having satiated the 
sum of Rs. Two Jakh Eighteen thousand to 
defendant No. I according to the agreement 
to sell dated 15.01.1989 and to get the 
vacmt possession of suit land? 
4. 
Whether suitland is governn-i:nt land due to Unproved 
which plaintiffs have not got the right to 
sell/transler the same? 
5. 
Whether plaintiffs did not issue notice under Suit 
was 
Section CPC to defendant No.2? If yes, then instituted having 
its effect? 
obtained 
permission from 
the Court. 
DHEERAJ DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED v. DR. OM 
31 
PRAKASH GUPTA [KURIAN, J.] 
6. 
Whether defendants Nos. 3 to 11 are 
Proved. 
A 
bonafide purchasers of suitland? If yes, 
Plaintiffs 
are 
then its effect? 
not enti tied to 
get the relief 
sought. 
B 
7. 
Whether plaintiffs have undervalued the No 
suit land have satiated deficient court 
fee? If yes, then its effect? 
8. 
Relief and cost? 
Suit 
dismissed. 
c 
. Additional issue : 
9. 
Whether an order dated 24.01.1996 passed No 
in the suit No. 4 IA/95 bears the effect of 
D 
res judicata in this case? If yes. then its 
effect? 
All the issues were answered against the plaintiffs. 
6. On re-appraisal of the evidence. the High Cou11 took the view 
E 
that Exhibit P-1 was genuine and therefore, decreed the suit. It will be 
appropriate to incorporate herein the following paragraph as also the 
decreetal portion of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court:_-
"21. Learned counsel for the respondents have pointed during 
argument that agreement Exhibit P-1 is a suspicious document 
F 
looking to the other agreement Exhibit D-13 in which rate of suit 
land has been mentioned as 2.50 rupees per square ft. But this 
agreement has been written on plain paper that put on 15.01.1989 
and not signed by consenting parties who have signed the 
agreement Exhibit P-1 on the same day. Therefore, in the absence 
G 
of signatures of any witness or consenting party agreement Exhibit 
D-13 cannot be relied, even the agreement Exhibit P-1 which is 
signed not only by the parties but also by 

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