LexG. JAYASHREE & ORS. versus BHAGWANDAS S. PATEL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 17 S.C.R. 1454
A
G. JA YASHREE & ORS.
v.
BHAGWANDAS S. PATEL & ORS.
•'--T
(Civil Appeal No. 4451 of 2008)
B
DECEMBER 19, 2008
(S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
Specific Performance -
Agreement of sale for
..
development of land - Failure on the part of vendee to
c develop -
Vendors seeking enforcement of terms of
~
agreement - One of the vendees rescinding from the contract
by way of compromise - Another vendee filing suits seeking
direction for vendors to get fresh layout plan for the land and
for specific performance of contract - Suits decreed - Set
D aside by High Court - On appear, held: Suits not liable to be
decreed - There was delay in raising the fresh demand by
the vendee - Enforcement of the contract by the joint
promisee is not maintainable in the facts of the case - The
trial court wrongly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction for
."
enforcing the agreement as the plaintifflvendee had not
E approached the court with clean hands.
Appellants' predecessor-in-interest ('G' and 'M')
entered into an agreement for sale with respondent Nos.
1 to 3 (owners of land Survey No. 36). They had also
purchased the adjacent land from other vendors. As per
F the terms of the agreement vendees were required to
obtain permission for layout. The vendees applied for
r
composite layout for the entire land i.e. also the land
which was not the subject matter of the agreement.
As, grant of layout could have been applied for only
G by the owners, the vendees paid the amount towards
layout permit fees and development charges to the
respondents 1 to 3 for the entire land. The layout was
granted by the authority concerned subject to certain
'{
conditions. The conditions were not complied with.
H
1454
G. JAYASHREE & ORS. v. BHAGWANDAS S. PATEL & 1455
ORS.
Vendors asked the vendees to develop the land in terms
A
of the agreement. Vendees wanted to have a fresh layout
·~
only in respect of the land Survey No. 36. Differences
arose between the vendees and developers of the
neighbouring plots and also between the vendees
in terse.
8
Vendee 'M' filed a suit against respondents 1 to 3
alleging breach of contract.- After death of vendee 'M' his
legal representatives compromised the matter with
..
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 .
,.
Vendee 'G' filed suit for mandatory injunction to c
obtain separate layout for the land in survey No. 36.
Thereafter he filed another suit for specific performance
of agreement of sale. Trial Court decreed the suits. High
Court set aside the decree. Hence the present appeals.
Dismissing the. appeals, the Court
D
HELD: 1.1 A suit for enforcement of a contract on the
part of the joint promisee is maintainable. But the same
.}'
is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Keeping
in view the consent decree passed by a competent court
of law in terms of consent entered into by and between
E,
the joint vendee and defendants 1 and 3, the agreement
of sale in the same form could not have been enforced.
The matter might have been different, had the
compromise not been recorded. A part of the contract
stood rescinded; it has been worked out. [Paras 26 and
F
30] [1469-E; 1472-G-H; 1473-A]
Jagdeo Singh and Ors. v. Bisambhar and Ors. AIR 1937
Nagpur 186; Jahar Roy (Dead through L.Rs.) and Anr. v.
Premji Bhimji Mansata and Anr. (1978) 1 SCR 770; Jahar
Roy (Dead through L.Rs.) and Anr. v. Premji Bhimji Mansata
G
and Anr.; Ponnuswami Gounder v. Boyan and Ors. AIR 1979
MADRAS 130 and Safiur Rahman v. Maharumunnissa Bibi
l
(1897) ILR 24 Calcutta 832 , referred to.
1.2. Vendee G. not being a party to the compromise,
may not be bound thereby but at least being a party to
H
1456
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 17 S.C.R.
A the suit, he keeping in view the interest he had in the
matter, should have opposed recording of the said
compromise. He without any further delay shoµld have
also filed a suit for specific performance of contract. He
even did not file a suit for specific performance
8 immediately thereafter. He first filed a suit for mandatory
injunction. The fact that he did not choose to file a suit
for specific performance of contract at the first instance
speaks volumes about his conduct. It may be true that
in terms of the agreement, draft layout was to be obtained
in respect of Plot No. 36 but the very fact that the parties
C proceeded on the basis that all the lands would be
developed together and steps havinExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.