LexK.NARENDRA versus RIVIERA APARTMENTS (P) LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-- ~· NARENDRA A v. RIVIERA APARTMENTS (P) LTD. MAY 24, 1999 [SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] B Specific Relief Act, 1963-Sections 16, 18, 20-Specific performance- Jurisdiction to decree is discretionary-Scope of-Default on part of purchasers in performing their obligations under the contract-Rise in value of /and-Possession over a meagre part of property was delivered to C purchasers-Performance of contract would involve hardship to seller- Held, discretionary jurisdiction to decree specific performance not to be exercised in favour of purchasers-Award of compensation. The appellant entered into an agreement to sell suit property in the year 1972, for a sum of Rs. 8,97,740. The total are~ of the_ land was D approximately 4000 sq. mtrs. wherein lease hold rights were vested in favour of the appellant in terms of a perpetual lease. An amount of Rs. 5000 with a cheque for Rs. 2,72,000 which was post dated was given by the purchasers respondents with a stipulation that the same was to be encashed by the seller after the plans for multi-storeyed buildings as submitted by the purchasers E were passed and cleared for construction by the NDMC and L&DO or earlier by a mutual agreement. However, the agreement to sell dated 25-7- 1972 did not specifically provides for a time limit within which the agreement was to be performed or its performance secured. Subsequently, part of the land forming subject matter of the agreement was declared as an excess land within the meaning of the Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act and hence F could not have been sold. Part of the land had been acquired by the State and to that extent the agreement had been rendered incapable of performance. The Land Acquisition Officer estimated the value of the acquiring property at Rs. 33,400 per sq. mtr. Possession over a meagre part of the property was delivered by the appellant to the respondents. On a major part of the property, G the appellant continued to remain in possession. Considering the failure on the part of the respondents in securing sanctions/clearance and the difficulties created in the way of transfer by Urban Land Ceiling Act, the appellant filed a suit in 1979, seeking a decree for a declaration that the agreement to sell dated 25-7-1972 had become null and void and impossible of performance and a decree for delivery of possession of a portion of the land. In 1980, the H 777 778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 3 S.C.R. A respondents filed a suit against the appellant seeking performance of the contract for sale and in the alternative to grant a decree for the refund of Rs. 3,25,000 with interest and a decree for compensation. The trial Judge dismissed that suit. However, the High Court in appeal held that as the appellant had got encashed the cheque for Rs. 2,75,000 the appellant was B obliged to hand over physical possession of the portion of the suit premises which was in his occupation to the respondents. This appeal had been filed against the judgment of the High Court. The respondents submitted that inspite of a part of area of the property agreed to be transferred having been rendered inalienable by the owner on account of its having been acquired by the State and part of the property having been found to be inalienable on C account of being in excess of the ceiling limit provided by ULCRA, the respondents were prepared to have a sale deed executed of such remaining part of the property as is available to be transferred and that the ULCRA having been repealed, the hurdle of the land being in excess of the ceiling had been removed. D Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1.1. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides that the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so; the discretion of the court is not arbitrary but sound and reasonable guided E by judicial principles and capable of correction by a court of appeal. Performance of the contract involving some hardship on the defendant which he did not foresee while non-performance involving no such hardship on the plaintiff, is one of the circumstances in which the court may properly exercise discretion not to decree specific performance. The doctrine of comparative hardship has been statutorily recognized in India. However, mere inadequacy F of consideration or the mere fact that the contract is onerou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.