K.PRAKASH versus B.R. SAMPATH KUMAR

Citation: [2014] 13 S.C.R. 702 · Decided: 22-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 702 
K.PRAKASH 
v. 
B.R. SAMPATH KUMAR 
(Civil Appeal No. 904 7 of 2014) 
SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 
[M. Y. EQBAL AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - ss.16(c) and 20- Specific 
performance of contract -Agreement to sell property- Suit 
c for specific performance of the agreement - Held: Remedy 
for specific performance is an equitable remedy- The Court 
while granting relief for specific performance exercises 
discretionary jurisdiction - Discretion must be exercised in 
accordance with sound and reasonable judicial principles -
D On facts, High Court erred in holding that the agreement was 
executed by respondent without free mind and volition and 
under some pressure - Once an agreement to sell is legal 
and validly proved and further requirements for getting such 
a decree is established then the Court has to exercise its 
E discretion in favour of granting relief for specific performance. 
Specific Relief Act, 1963- ss.16(c) and 20- Specific 
performance .of contract - Agreement to sell property -
Subsequent rise in price - Effect - Held: Rise in price is a 
normal change of circumstances and, therefore, on that 
F ground a decree for specific performance cannot be reversed 
- However, the court may take notice of the fact that there 
has been an increase in the price of the property and 
considering the other facts and circumstances of the case, 
while granting decree for specific performance can impose 
G such condition which may to some extent compensate the 
defendant-owner of the property. 
All~:>wing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The High Court has not approached the 
H issue in its right perspective and has committed serious 
702 
K. PRAKASH v. B.R. SAMPATH KUMAR 
703 
error of law in holding that the agreement was executed A 
by the defendant without free mind and volition and 
under some pressure. [Para 14][712-A-B] 
1.2. Remedy for specific performance is an 
equitable remedy. The· Court while granting relief for 
B 
specific performance exercise discretionary jurisdiction. 
Discretion must be exercised in accordance with the 
sound and reasonable judicial principles. It is true, as 
contemplated under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 
that a party is not entitled to get a decree for specific c 
performance merely because it is lawful to do so. 
Nevertheless once an agreement to sell is legal and 
validly proved and further requirements for getting such 
a decree is established then the Court has to exercise 
its discretion in favour of granting relief for specific 
D 
performance. [Paras 15, 17][713-A-B; 714-F] 
Rookey's case, 77 ER 209; (1597) 5 Co. Rep. 99 
and Attorney General vs. Wheat (1759) 1 Eden 
177; 28 ER 652 - referred to. 
2.1. Subsequent rise in price willnot be treated as E 
a hardship entailing refusal of the decree for specific 
performance. Rise in price is a normal change of 
circumstances and, therefore, on that ground a decree 
for specific performance cannot be reversed. However, 
the court may take notice of the fact that there has been 
F 
an increase in the price of the property and considering 
( 
the other facts and circumstances of the case, the 
Court while granting decree for specific performance 
can impose such condition which may to some 
extent compensate the defendant-owner of the property. G 
[Paras 19, 20][715-A-C] 
2.2. On facts, ten years have passed by and now 
the price of the property in that area where it situates 
has increased by not less than five tir:nes. Keeping in 
H 
704 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 
A mind the factual position, the appellant should pay a total 
consideration of Rs.25 lakhs, being the price for the said 
property (whereas the agreement to sell in question was 
executed by the respondent-owner in the year 2003 for 
total consideration of Rs.16.10 lakhs). [Para 21] 
B [716-C-D] 
c 
Nirma/a Anand vs. Advent Corporation (P) Ltd. 
and Others (2002) 8 SCC 146: 2002 (2) Suppl. 
SCR 706 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
77 ER 209 
referred to 
28 ER 652 
referred to 
2002 (2) Suppl. SCR 706 
relied on 
Para 16 
Para 16 
Para 20 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
9047of2014. 
· From the judgment and order dated 23.08.2011 passed 
by High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. No. 396 of 
E 2007. 
F 
Sanjay Parikh, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Ms. Vishruti Vijay, 
Advs. for the Appellant. 
P. Vishwantha Shetty, Sr. Adv., Ms. Kheyali Sarkar, E.C. 
Vidya Sagar, Ms. Jennifer Joh,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.