KIRPAL KAUR AND ANOTHER versus RITESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 798 · Decided: 22-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
798
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 798
798
KIRPAL KAUR AND ANOTHER
v.
RITESH AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 1991 of 2022)
MARCH 22, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA,JJ.]
Specific Relief Act, 1963: s.20 – Applicability of – Specific
performance – Concurrent findings of facts recorded by all the courts
below on the execution of agreement to sell and on the payment of
part sale consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- by the original plaintiff-
vendee to the original defendant-vendor – Merely because in the
document the purpose of sale of the property was stated to be for
the marriage expenses, the document which otherwise can be said
to be an agreement to sell, will not become a loan agreement and/or
security document – Once the execution of the agreement to sell for
a sale consideration has been believed and it has been found that
plaintiffs were always ready and willing to perform their part under
the agreement, they were entitled to decree for specific performance
– In the facts and circumstances, clauses (a) and (c) of s.20 of the
Specific Relief Act shall not be applicable – However, to do the
complete justice between the parties and in exercise of powers under
Art.142 of the Constitution of India, the original plaintiffs are
directed to pay additional Rs.3,50,000/- to the original defendants,
over and above the balance sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- – On
such payment, the original defendants shall execute the sale deed
in favour of original plaintiffs – Constitution of India – Art.142.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. There were concurrent findings of facts recorded
by all the courts below on the execution of agreement dated
11.02.2004 and on the payment of part sale consideration of
Rs.3,50,000/- by the vendee to the vendor. The trial Court refused
to grant the relief of specific performance solely on the ground
that the agreement might have been executed as a security
document for repayment of loan. However, even the trial Court
also specifically held that the agreement was validly executed for
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
799
a sale consideration. The plaintiffs preferred the appeal before
the first appellate Court against refusal to pass a decree for specific
performance. The defendants did not prefer any appeal before
the first appellate Court against the findings recorded by the trial
Court on execution of the agreement and on payment of part sale
consideration. Therefore, the findings recorded by the trial Court
that the agreement was validly executed for a sale consideration
has attained finality. [Para 5][804-F-H; 805-A-B]
2. Merely because in the document the purpose of sale of
the property was stated to be for the marriage expenses, the
document which otherwise can be said to be an agreement to
sell, will not become a loan agreement and/or security document.
If the agreement as a whole is read, it is an agreement to sell.
Both, the first appellate Court and the High Court rightly not
accepted the case on behalf of the defendants that the agreement
is a loan agreement and/or security document. It was never the
case on behalf of the defendants before the trial Court that the
agreement is a loan agreement and/or security document. Before
the trial Court, the defendants denied totally the very execution
of the agreement and receipt of Rs.3,50,000/-, which was rightly
disbelieved even by the trial Court. Before the first appellate
Court, for the first time, the defendants came out with a case that
the agreement was a loan agreement and/or security document.
[Para 6][805-D-F]
3. Once the execution of the agreement to sell for a sale
consideration was believed and it was found that the vendee and
thereafter, the original plaintiffs were always ready and willing to
perform their part under the agreement and in fact they remained
present before the Sub Registrar on 10.02.2005, which was
established and proved, the decree for specific performance was
rightly passed by the first appellate Court, which is rightly
confirmed by the High Court. In the facts and circumstances,
clauses (a) & (c) of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act shall not
be applicable and/or attracted. However, at the same time to do
the complete justice between the parties and in exercise of
powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the original
plaintiffs are directed to pay additional Rs.3,50,000/- to the
KIRPAL KAUR AND ANOTHER v. RITESH AND OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
800
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 

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