LexGOBIND RAM versus GIAN CHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
GOBINDRAM A v. GIAN CHAND SEPTEMBER 27, 2000 [V.N. KHARE AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] B Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 20. Decree for specific performance-Grant of-Held, the grant of decree is not automatic but is one of discretion of the Court on fair, just and C equitable consideration-Court should meticulously consider the facts and circumstances and motive behind the litigation. Decree for specific performance-Grant of-Agreement to sell-Non- execution of sale deed due to escalation in prices of real estates-Suit for D specific performance-Al/owed by the Trial Court and High Court-On appeal, held it would be inequitable and unjust to deny the decree which was allowed by the Courts below when no undue or unfair advantage was taken by the party-However, to mitigate the hardship of seller, purchaser is directed to deposit a further sum as compensation. Appellant agreed to sell the disputed property to respondent for certain consideration and earnest money was paid to the appellant. Subsequently, on failure to execute the sale deed within the stipulated period, respondent filed a suit for specific performance of contract which was decreed by Trial Court. E On appeal, High Court holding that appellant tried to wriggle out the contract because of escalation in prices of real estate properties, dismissed the appeal F with a direction to the respondent to deposit a further sum of Jb, 1,00,000. Hence the present appeal. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that instead of decree for specific performance compensation may be awarded. Dismissing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1. Grant of a decree for specific performance of contract is not automatic and is one of discretion of the Court and the Court has to consider whether it will be fair, just and equitable Court is guided by principle of justice, H 443 444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A equity and good conscience. The Court should meticulously consider au facts and circumstances of the case and motive behind the litigation should also be considered. (446-B-C] B Parakunnan Veetill Josaeph 's Son Mathew v. Nedumbara Kuruvi/a 's Son and Others, AIR (1987) SC 2328, relied on. Damacherla Anjaneyulu and Anr. v. Damacheria Venkata Seshaiah and Anr., AIR (1987) SC 164J., distinguished. ''II 2. In the instant case, High Court had given clear finding that the C appellant tried to wriggle out of the contract between the parties because of escalation in prices of real estate properties. Thus, the respondent is entitled to get a decree as he has not taken any undue or unfair advantage over the appellant. It will be inequitable and unjust at this point of time to deny the decree to the respondent after two Courts below have decided in favour of the respondent Further, respondent has deposited the balance of the consideration D in the Trial Court and also the amount in the High Court, as directed. However~ to mitigate the hardship to the appellant respondent is directed to deposit a further sum of Rs. 3,00,000. [446-,:, F, G) E F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 443 of 1994. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.91 of the Delhi High Court in R.F.A. No. 50of1977. Sudhir Chandra Agarwal, Ashwani Kumar, Achintaya Diwedi and P.O. Sharma for the Appellant. P.N. Misra, Ms. Kumud Lata Das, R.M. Patanaik, A. Kumar Yadav and B. Swain for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G PHUKAN, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of Delhi High Court dated 20th December, 1991 passed in RFA No. 50of1977. We may briefly state the undisputed facts. The appellant agreed to sale the disputed property situated at Lajpat Nagar (IV), New Delhi for a H consideration of Rs. 16,000 to the respondent and accordingly on 24th January, -' - GOBIND RAM v. GIAN CHAND [PHUKAN, J.] 445 1973 an agreement to sale was executed and a sum of Rs. 1000 was paid as A earnest money to the appellant. Respondent filed the suit for specific performance of the contract as the appellant failed to execute the sale deed within time. On 6/10/1976 the suit was decreed and the respondent deposited balance consideration of Rs. 15,000 in the Trial Court. The appeal filed by the appellant in the High Court was also dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 20th December, 1991. However, to mitigate the hardship to the appellant B and as the respondent agreed to pay more sum, High Cour
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.