GADDIPATI DIVIJA & ANR. versus PATHURI SAMRAJYAM & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 802 · Decided: 18-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KRISHNA MURARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
802
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
GADDIPATI DIVIJA & ANR.
v.
PATHURI SAMRAJYAM & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4206-4207 of 2011)
APRIL 18, 2023
[KRISHNA MURARI AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s. 16 – 2018 amendment – Specific
Performance – Father of appellants executed an agreement of sale
with respondent no. 1-plaintiff, whereby he agreed to sell the suit
schedule property measuring Ac. 0.90 cents to respondent no. 1 for
a sale consideration of Rs. 11,88,000/- out of which respondent no.
1 paid an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- as advance – Under the said
agreement, father of appellants agreed to execute the sale deed in
favour of respondent no. 1 after demarcating the land and receiving
the balance sale consideration within three months – Father of
appellants and after his death, appellants also failed to measure
and demarcate the land – Respondent no.1 filed suit against
appellants and sought specific performance of contract – Trial Court
held that respondent no.1 failed to prove entitlement for specific
performance of contract, however, entitled plaintiff to recover
advance amount of Rs.4,00,000/- – However, the High Court
directed appellants to execute sale deed in favour of respondent
no.1 after receiving balance consideration – On appeal, held:
Respondent had established that she was always ready and willing
to perform her part of contract by paying the balance sale
consideration which is the primary requirement as per Section 16
(c) of the Act – Part of evidence with regard to the respondent’s
readiness and willingness was not challenged – It can be deduced
that unless the vendor (deceased father of the appellants) got the
subject land measured and demarcated within three months as per
agreement, it would be impossible for the purchaser (respondent)
to get a sale deed executed, and as such, the question of paying the
balance sale consideration does not arise – It is clear that vendor
failed to perform his part of obligation by getting property measured
and demarcated – Findings of the High Court upheld.
[2023] 3 S.C.R. 802
802
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
803
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is clear from the facts of the case at hand that
the Plaintiff (Respondent No. 1 herein) was ever ready and willing
to pay the balance sale consideration. In the sale agreement, it
was clearly mentioned that within three months the deceased
father of the appellants will get the suit schedule property
measured and demarcated and the Plaintiff (Respondent No. 1
herein) shall pay the balance sale consideration. It appears that,
at first, the deceased father of the appellants while agreeing to
sell 90 cents of land, concealed that he is the owner of only 50
cents of the land. Subsequently, he failed to measure and
demarcate the land. On the other hand, the Plaintiff (Respondent
No. 1 herein), from the outset, has been clear and blemishless in
his conduct. She had paid the advance sale consideration of
Rs. 4,00,000/-. When the deceased father of the appellants failed
to measure and demarcate the land, the question of the Plaintiff
(Respondent No. 1 herein) paying the balance sale consideration
does not arise. However, even then the averments of the Plaintiff,
her conduct and the testimony of her husband show that the
Plaintiff, since the signing of the sale agreement, was ever ready
and willing to pay the balance consideration. [Para 30][816-A-D]
2. However, what is to be seen in the present case, is that
the sale agreement dated 14.08.2002 stipulated that the vendor
(deceased father of the appellants) was required to get the land
measured and demarcated within three months, following which,
the purchaser (Respondent No. 1 herein /Plaintiff) was required
to pay the balance sale consideration. So, it can be clearly
observed that the performance of the purchaser’s obligation to
pay the balance sale consideration within three months is
dependent upon the fulfilment of the vendor’s obligation to get
the land measured and demarcated within three months. [Para
34][818-G-H; 819-A]
3. Therefore, it can be deduced that unless the vendor got
the subject land measured and demarcated within three months,
it would be impossible for the purchaser (Respondent No. 1
herein/Plaintiff) to get a sale deed executed, and as such, the
question of paying the balance sale consideration does not arise.
GADDIPATI DIVIJA & ANR. v. PATHURI SAMRAJYAM &
ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
804
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
This was a

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