LexHEMANTA MONDAL AND OTHERS versus SRI GANESH CHANDRA NASKAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2015] 9 S.C.R. 300 HEMANTAMONDALAND OTHERS v. SRI GANESH CHANDRA NASKAR (Civil Appeal No. 7893 of 2015) SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 [DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJJ Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s. 20 - Agreement to sale - Payment of earnest money- Balance amount agreed to be C paid on execution of sale-deed - Refusal to execute the agreement offering to pay back the earnest money- Suit for specific performance, possession and injunction - Trial court directed the defendant to refund the earnest money - In 0 appeal by the plaintiff, direction to the defendants to execute the sale-deed after accepting balance amount - In second appeal, High Court modified the decree of first appellate court, directing to measure the land in question afresh and to confirm the decree on the basis of the fresh measurement E - On appeal, held: s. 20 provides for discretion to the court in grating relief of specific performance - Such discretion is not to be exercised arbitrarily, but should be guided by judicial principles - The court may in proper exercise of discretion, grant decree of specific performance in a case where plaintiff F has done substantial acts or suffered losses in consequence of a contract capable of specific performance - In the present case, it cannot be said that plaintiff had done substantial acts or suffered losses due to expenditure in constructions etc; in consequence of a contract capable of specific performance G - Measurement of land agreed to be sold also not clear - Therefore, defendants directed to pay back the earnest money with 18% interest per annum. Disposing of the appeal, the Court H 300 HEMANTA MONDALAND OTHERS v. SRI GANESH 301 CHANDRA NASKAR HELD: 1. Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 gives A discretion to the court, and provides that the court is not · bound to grant relief of specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so. It further provides that the discretion is not to be exercjsed arbitrarily but guided by judicial principles. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 B enumerates three conditions when discretion is not to be exercised to grant decree of specific performance. Sub-section (3) of s.20 provides that court may properly exercise discretion to decree specific performance in any case where plaintiff has done substantial acts or suffered C losses in consequence of a contract capable of specific performance. [Para 15) [306-F; 307-E] 2. In the present case, possession was not given to the plaintiff at the time of execution of the agreement, D nor the area of land agreed to be sold was clear, as such, it cannot be said that the plaintiff has done substantial acts or suffered losses due to expenditure in constructions etc., in consequence of a contract capable of specific ·performance. The direction given by High E Court in the impugned order shows that the measurements of land actually agreed to be sold, are not final. Therefore, instead of affirming the decree of specific performance as modified by High Court, it will F be equitable, just and proper to direct the appellants to pay back amount of Rs.60,000/- accepted by the original defendant with interest @ 18% per annum to the plaintiff/ respondent from the date of the agreement till date. [Paras 16 and 17] [307-F-H; 308-A] G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7893 of2015. From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2013 of the High Court of Calcutta in S.A. No. 430 of 2004.. H 302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 9 S.C.R. A Rauf Rahim, P. Das for the Appellants. Sukesh Ghosh, Dr. Kailash Chand, Arjun Singh Bawa, . Nishant Das for the Respondents. B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1: Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 01.08.2013, passed by High Court of judicature at C Calcutta in Second Appeal No. 430 of 2004, whereby said court has modified the decree passed by Additional District Judge 3'd, Howrah in Title Appeal No. 139 of2002. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and D perused the papers on record. 4. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff/respondent filed Title Suit No. 4 of 1993 for specific performance of agreement. possession and injunction before Civil Court at Howrah, in E respect of 'Danga' land measuring 8 cottahs 14 .chittacks 24 sq. ft., recorded as 16 shatak in R.S. Dag No. 271 Khatian No.74, and in recent settlement record the sam
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.