DR. MANOHAR GANAPATHI RAVANKAR versus GURUNANDA RAIKAR

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 51 · Decided: 15-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
51
DR. MANOHAR GANAPATHI RAVANKAR
v.
GURUNANDA RAIKAR
(Civil Appeal No. 3415 of 2019)
APRIL 15, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Specific performance: Respondent-defendant agreed to sell
the schedule property for total sale consideration of Rs.30 lacs and
was paid earnest money of Rs.26000/- – At the time of agreement,
there was a civil family dispute pending in respect of the schedule
property against him – The condition in the agreement was that the
defendant would settle the pending dispute within a period of six
months  and if the dispute is not settled within six months, the time
for execution of sale deed would be extended by such time as
mutually to be agreed upon by the parties – Appellant-plaintiff sent
a notice stating that as per his information, dispute in the family
stood settled and expressed his readiness to pay the balance of the
consideration – Plaintiff later filed suit for specific performance –
It was stated in the plaint that on demand made by defendant, a
further sum of Rs.6.75 lacs was paid to him – However, no date of
such payment was disclosed in the plaint – Trial court decreed the
suit and directed the plaintiff to pay balance amount of Rs.29.74
lacs – Defendant filed appeal before High Court – High Court
passed order of refund of Rs.7.01 lacs while declining the relief of
specific performance of the agreement on the ground that the
plaintiff has failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform
his part of the agreement – High Court further held that there was
nothing to show that as to when and how payment of Rs. 6.75 lacs
was made out of balance sale consideration – On appeal, held:
High Court erred in law in granting a decree for payment of Rs.7.01
lacs more so when the High Court has returned a finding that the
plaintiff was not ready and willing to execute the contract merely
on the basis that original title deeds might have been handed over
to the plaintiff when sum of Rs. 6.75 lacs was said to have been
   [2019] 6 S.C.R. 51
51
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
52
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
paid by the plaintiff – In the notice issued by plaintiff there was no
assertion of handing over of the documents of the title or payment
of Rs. 6.75 lacs – In fact, the plaintiff categorically stated in the
notice, his readiness and willingness to pay the balance sale
consideration amount of Rs. 29.74 lacs – There was no document
to prove payment of Rs. 6.75 lacs, except the bald statement of the
plaintiff – If payment of earnest money of Rs.26,000/- could be
made by cheque, then the payment of Rs. 6.75 lacs in cash is beyond
any comprehension – Therefore, the entire story of payment of Rs.
6.75 lacs at the time of handing over the title documents was wholly
unbelievable –  High Court erred in passing a decree for recovery
of the said amount only on the basis of presumptions.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the notice issued by plaintiff there was no
assertion of handing over of the documents of the title or payment
of Rs. 6,75,000/-. In fact, the categorical assertion in the notice
served was that the Plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the
balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 29,74,000/-. There was
no document to prove payment of Rs. 6,75,000/-, except the bald
statement of the Plaintiff. There was no any other evidence to
prove that sum of Rs. 6,75,000/- was paid by the Plaintiff and on
which date. The entire story of payment of Rs. 6,75,000/- at the
time of handing over the title documents is wholly unbelievable.
The Plaintiff has not asserted such fact in the plaint or in the
notice served on 25.12.2006. The High Court erred in law in
passing a decree for recovery of the said amount only on the
basis of presumptions.  The Plaintiff is not entitled to decree for
relief of specific performance, in view of the finding recorded by
the High Court itself that he was not ready and willing to perform
his part of the contract.   The appeal filed by the Plaintiff is
dismissed whereas, that of the Defendant is allowed. Since the
Plaintiff has admittedly paid a sum of Rs. 26,000/-, the Defendant
is ordered to pay such amount to the Plaintiff to settle
equities along with simple interest at the rate of 9 per cent per
annum from the date of payment till the date of realisation.
[Para 11-14][57-A-E]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
53
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3415
of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated  17.02.2016 of the  High
Cour

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