G H SURINDER PAL SONI versus SOHAN LAL (D) THRU LRS .

Citation: [2019] 9 S.C.R. 1036 · Decided: 23-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1036
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
SURINDER PAL SONI
v
SOHAN LAL (D) THRU LRS .
(Civil Appeal No. 5360  of  2019)
JULY 23, 2019
      [DR DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Specific Relief Act, 1963: s.28 – Suit for specific performance
by appellant – Decree in respect of suit land except for land bearing
2 karnals – The appellant-decree holder and respondents-judgment
debtors filed appeals challenging the order of trial court – Appellate
court issued notice on the appeal and the application for stay filed
by respondents while the appellant moved for execution of decree –
Objections to the execution of decree filed by the respondents –
Appellate court dismissed both the appeals – Objections by
respondent were dismissed – Revision petition by respondents – High
Court allowed the revision and directed refund of earnest money in
substitution of the decree of specific performance holding that there
was failure on part of appellant to deposit the balance of the sale
consideration within  a period of two months from the date of decree
and as a consequence the decree was rendered inexecutable by
virtue of provisions of s.28 of 1963 Act – On appeal, held:  The
doctrine of merger is founded on the rationale that there cannot be
more than one operative decree at a given point in time – The said
doctrine applies irrespective of whether the Appellate Court has
affirmed, modified or reversed the decree of the trial court – Upon
the decision of Appellate Court, there is a merger of the judgment
of trial court with the decision which is rendered in appeal – In the
instant case, once the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and
decree of the trial court, there was evidently a merger of the judgment
of the trial court with the decision of the Appellate Court – Once
the Appellate Court renders its judgment, it is the decree of the
Appellate Court which becomes executable – Hence, the entitlement
of the decree holder to execute the decree of the Appellate Court
cannot be defeated – Appellant-decreeholder had paid the balance
[2019]  9 S.C.R. 1036
  1036
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1037
of the sale consideration  after the judgment of the Appellate Court
– Appellant having acted bona fide, the equities must weigh in his
favour – Executing court was justified in rejecting the specious
objections of the respondents – In revision arising out of an execution
proceeding, High Court modified the decree – Such a course was
not open in law – High Court acted in excess of its revisional
jurisdiction in substituting decree for specific performance with an
order for refund of the sale consideration, beyond the earnest money
of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the decree holder – In consequence, the order
passed by Executing Court dismissing objections of respondents is
restored.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The doctrine of merger operates as a principle
upon a judgment being rendered by the Appellate Court. In the
present case, once the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment
and decree of the Trial Court, there was evidently a merger of
the judgment of the Trial Court with the decision of the Appellate
Court. Once the Appellate Court renders its judgment, it is the
decree of the Appellate Court which becomes executable.
[Para 17] [1047-B]
2.1 The High Court held that there was a failure on the
part of the appellant to deposit the balance of the sale
consideration within a period of two months from the date of the
decree and as a consequence the decree had been rendered
inexecutable by virtue of the provisions of Section 28 of the
Specific Relief Act 1963. The High Court noted that of the total
sale consideration of Rs. 8,35,000/- under the terms of the
agreement to sell, the appellant in 2004 had paid an amount of
Rs. 5,85,000/- while the balance of Rs. 1,15,864/-, consequent
upon the partial decree in the suit had been deposited on 19
February 2015 after the dismissal of the first appeals on 17 January
2015. According to the High Court, the time frame for the deposit
of the balance sale consideration was implicit in the decision of
the Trial Court which had ordered the execution of the sale deed
within two months from the date of the judgment upon deposit of
the remaining sale consideration. The High Court held that the
SURINDER PAL SONI   v.  SOHAN LAL (D) THRU LRS .
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1038
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 9 S.C.R.
judgment and decree had not been stayed during the pendency
of the first appeals and the mere f

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