K. NANJAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS. versus R.A. HAMEED ALIAS AMEERSAB (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2015] 11 S.C.R. 822 · Decided: 02-09-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 822 
K. NANJAPPA (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v. 
R.A. HAMEED ALIAS AMEERSAB (DEAD) BY LRS. AND 
ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 8224 of2003) 
SEPTEMBER 02, 2015 
[M. Y. EQBAL AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
c 
Specific Relief Act, 1963: 
D 
s. 20 - Scope of - Held: s. 20 preserves discretionary 
power of court- Discretion must be exercised in accordance 
with sound and reasonably judicial principles. 
s. 20 - Specific performance of the agreement written 
in a quarter sheet of paper - High Court relying upon said 
agreement since the said quarter sheet of paper was 
produced before the Magistrate in a criminal proceeding -
E Correctness of - Held: High Court was not correct in relying 
upon the document although it was executed on a quarter 
sheet of paper and not on a proper stamp paper - High Court 
also misdirected itself in law inholding that there was no' need 
for the plaintiff to have sought for the opinion of the expert 
F regarding the execution of the document- The evidence and 
the finding recorded by the criminal courts in a criminal 
proceeding cannot be the conclusive proof of existence of 
any fact, particularly, the existence of agreement to grant a 
decree for specific performance without independent finding 
G recorded by the Civil Court - It is not a fit case where the 
discretionary relief for specific performance is to be granted 
in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. 
Oral contract- Suit for.specific performance of contract 
H - Held: Can be decreed on the basis of oral contract -
822 
K. NAN JAPPA (D) BY LRS. v. R.A. HAMEED ALIAS 
823 
. AMEERSAB (D) BY LRS. 
However, heavy burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that there A 
was consensus ad idem between the parties for the concluded 
agreement. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is no dispute that even a decree for B 
specific performance can be granted on the basis of oral 
contract. However, in a case where the plaintiff come 
forward to seek a decree for specific performance of 
contract of sale of immoveable pr~perty on the basis of ar:i C 
oral agreement or a written contract, heavy burden lies on 
the plaintiff to prove that there was consensus ad idem 
between the parties for the concluded agreement for sale 
of immoveable property. Whether there was such a 
concluded contract or not would be a question of fact to o 
be determined in the facts and circumstances. of each 
individual case. It has to be established by the plaintiffs 
that vital and fundamental terms for sale of immoveable 
property were concluded between the parties. [Paras 19, 
20] [842-C-D, F-G] 
E 
2. In a suit for specific performance of a contract, the 
Court has to keep in mind Section 20 of the Specific Reliefs 
Act. This Section preserves judicial discretion to grant 
decree for Specific performance. However, the Court is F 
not bound to g~ant specific performance merely because 
it is lawful to do so. The Court should meticulously consider 
all facts and circumstances of the case and to see that it is 
not used as an instrument of oppression to have an unfair 
advantage not only to th~ plaintiff but also to the defendant. G · 
It is equally well settled that Relief of specific performance. 
is discretionary but not arbitrary, hence, discretion must 
be exercised in accordance with sound and reasonably 
judicial principles. [Par~s 21, 23] [842-H; 843-A-B, F-G] 
H 
824 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015) 11 S.C.R. 
A 
3. In the instant case while deciding the issue as to 
whether the agreement of 1967, allegedly executed by 
the defendants, can be. enforced, the Court had to 
consider various discrepancies and series of legal 
proceedings before the agreement alleged to have been 
B executed. In agreement dated 2.9.1967, there is reference 
of earlier agreement dated 29.11.1965 whereunder Rs. 
18,000/- was paid to the defendant-appellant which was 
denied and disputed. Curiously enough that agreement 
dated 29.11.1965 was neither filed nor exhibited to 
C substantiate the case o.fthe plaintiff. The High Court put 
reliance on the agreement dated 2.9.1967 written in 'a 
quarter sheet of paper merely because of the fact that 
said quarter sheet of paper was produced before the 
0 
Magistrate in a criminal proceeding. The High Court is 
not correct in holding thatthere is no reason to disbelieve 
the execution of the document although it was executed 
on a quarter sheet of paper and not on a proper stamp 
and also written in. a small letter. The High Court also
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.