JAYAKANTHAM & OTHERS versus ABAYKUMAR

Citation: [2017] 2 S.C.R. 355 · Decided: 21-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 2 S.C.R. 355 
JAYAKANTHAM & OTHERS 
v. 
ABAYKUMAR 
(Civil Appeal No. 3049of2017) 
FEBRUARY 21, 201 7 
[ARUN MISHRA AND DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.) 
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s. 20(1) - Discretion as to 
decreeing specific performance - Held: Court is not bound to grant 
the relief of specific performance merely because it is la11ful to do 
so - s. 20(1) indicates that the jurisdiction to decree specific 
performance is discretionary - However, the discretion of the court 
is not arbitrary but is sound and reasonable, to be guided by judicial 
principles - On facts, decree for specific performance 11;as passed 
by the courts below, in favour of respondent - However, material 
placed on record indicates that the terms of the contract, the conduct 
of parties at the time of entering into the agreement and 
circumstances gave the respondent an unfair advantage over 
appellants - Circumstances make it inequitable to enforce specific 
performance - To meet ends of justice, decree for the payment of 
compensation passed in lieu of specific performance - Decree for 
specific performance is set aside - Appellants to pay to the 
respondent Rs. 15 lakhs as just compensation in lieu of specific 
performance. 
Appellant and father of the respondent entered into an agreement 
to sell the property for a consideration of Rs. 1,60,000/-. Rs. 60,000/-
was paid as advance and the balance was to be paid on execution of the 
sale deed. The sale deed was not completed within the stipulated period. 
The respondent filed suit for specific performance. The appellant pleaded 
that agreement to sell was executed only as a security for a loan 
transaction. The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance in 
favour of the respondent. The appellants were directed to execute a 
sale agreement in favour of the respondent against receipt of the balance 
amount. The said order was upheld by the courts below. Thereafter, 
SLP was filed before this Court. In appeal, this Court observed that the 
findings of facts recorded by the courts below was correct and could 
not be set aside on merits. However, the appellants raised an alternative 
355 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
356 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
submission that the suit property is the only property held by them and 
has an extremely high value; and that they are ready to pay Rs ten lakhs 
or more to retain it. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The court is not bound to grant the relief of 
spedfic performance merely because it is lawful to do so. Section 
20(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 indicates that the jurisdiction 
to decree specific performance is discretionary. Yet, the discretion 
of the court is not arbitrary but is "sound and reasonable'', to be 
"guided by judicial principles". The exercise of discretion is 
capable of being corrected by a court of appeal in the hierarchy of 
appellate courts. Sub-section 2 of Section 20 contains a stipulation 
of those cases where the court may exercise its discretion not to 
grant specific performance. [Para 8] [359-C-E] 
1.2 The material placed on record indicates that the terms 
of the contract, the conduct of parties at the time of entering into 
the agreement and circumstances under which the contract was 
entered into gave the plaintiff an unfair advantage over the 
defendants. These circumstances make it inequitable to enforce 
specific performance. [Para 11] [363-F-G] 
1.3 A decree for the payment of compensation in lieu of 
specific performance would meet the ends of justice. The father 
of the respondent paid an amount of rupees sixty thousand to the 
appellants in June 1999 of the total agreed consideration of Rs. 
1.60 lakhs. The appellants have voluntarily offered to pay an 
amount of rupees ten lakhs, as just compensation in lieu of specific 
performance. The ends of justice would be met by directing the 
appellants to pay to the respondent an amount of rupees fifteen 
Iakhs in lieu of specific performance. The decree for specific 
performance is set aside and is substituted with a direction to 
the appellants to pay a sum of rupees fifteen lakhs to the 
respondent in lieu of specific performance. [Paras 12, 13] (363-
G-H; 364-A-C) 
Parakunnan Vee till Joseph's Son Mathew v. 
Nedumbara Kuruvi/a's Son and Ors. AIR 1987 SC 
2328; Sardar Singh v. Smt. Krishna Devi and another 
(1994) 4 SCC 18; K. Narendra v. Riviera Apartments 
JAYAKANTHAM & OTHERS v. ABAYKUMAR 
357 
(P) Lt

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