LexK. KALPANA SARASWATHI versus P. S. S. SOMASUNDRAM CHETTIAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
K. KALPANA SARASWATIIl
v.
P. S. S. SOMASUNDRAM CHETIIAR
November 29, 1979
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER and R. s. PATHAK, JJ]
Specific per/oTJna11ce-lts nature.
293
In 1967 the respondent agreed to sell his house to the. appellant for a sum
: Rs. 4 lakhs which then was subject to an equitable mortgage in favour of a
ank. Tue trial court decreed the suit for specific performance directing the
aintiff to deposit the mort!l"ge amount within a specified time with interest
at 11 per cent till the date of payment and that failure to pay the amount would
result in the suit being dismissed.
At the time of the agreement the plaintiff
paid the whole consideration except the mortgage amount and obtained posses-
sion of the house.
The plaintiff did not deposit the mortgage amount within
the prescribed time.
She paid the mortgage money to tho bank some months
afterwards and took an assignment of its rights. In the suit filed by the bank
against the defendant she got herself impleaded as second plaintiff. Eventually
the mortgage suit resulted in a decree in favour of the appellant. By this time
the amount had swollen to Rs. 11 lakhs.
On appeal a division bench of the High Court vacated, the default clause.
The plaintiff's application for giving credit to the amount paid by her to the
mortgage bank and to pass a final decree in her favour was not granted by
It
c
D
the High Court. The High Court ultimately passed a decree for recission of
E
the contract for sale and for delivery of the possession with mesne profits'.
HELD : The High Court should pass a decree that the plaintiff appellant
should deposit within six months the entire consideration together with interest
e upto date at the rate of 11 per cent together with an undertaking that she
ould give up all her rights llllder the mortgage decree passed by the High
Court, except to the extent of the amount actually paid to the bank for taking
tho assigamont. (297 El
S I It is open to the court in control of a suit for specific performance to extend
the time for deposit and this Court may do so even now to enable the plaintifi'
to get the advantage of the agreement to sell in her favour. The disentitling
circumstances relied upon by the defendant are offset by the false pleas rai4ed
in the course of the suit by him and rightly negatived. Specific performance
is an equitable relief and he who seeks equity can be put on terms to ensure
~ that equity is done to. the opposite party even while granting the relief.
, \ !"
(295 HJ
Ia the instant case the assignment of the mortgage is not a guileless dis·
charge of the vendor's debt as implied in the agreement to sell but a disinge-
nions disguise to arm henelf with a. mortgage decree to swallow up the property
in ease the S]lecific performance litigation fails
The appellant acted contrary
to the . agreement because !nstelld of paying the mortgage money and extinguish-
ing the mortgage .Oe took an assignment of the equitable mortgage with a view
p
G
H
_--.......;....----------~
294
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1980] 2 s.c.R.'
'
.A
to use it against the respondent. This was not consistent with the understanding
assumed under the contract. [296 CJ
CIVIL APPEI.I.ATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1993-1994 of
1977·
ApJ'f"lls by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
22-3-77 of the Madras High Court in C.M.P. Nos. 3449 and 3563 of
1976.
M. R. M. Abdul Karim and S. Shaukat Hussain for the Appellant,
•
A. K. Sen (In CA. 1993)', Mrs. Shyamala Pappu (C.A. 199~
·C
and A. V. Rangam for the Respondent.
· t
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S:, .\ KRISHNA IYER, J.-W;ites A. G. Gardiner, if we may start off with
a strange flourish, that "the supreme art 'is. to achieve the maximum
result with the minimum .... effort. It is the art of the great either
D
who with a line reveals infinity. It is the art of the great dmmatist who
with a significant word shakes the soul. Schiller, said Coleridge, bums
a city to create his effect of terror : Shakespeare drops a handkerchief
and freezes our blood.(") For this exquisite reason, brevity is the soul
of art and justicing including judgment-writing, must practise the art of
brevity, especially where no great issue of legjll moment compels long
£
exposition. Therefore, we mean to· be brief to the bare bones, with a
few facts here and a brief expression of law there, by adopting the
technique which "is simply the perfect economyExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.