KISHOR GHANSHYAMSA PARALIKAR (DEAD) versus BALAJI MANDIR SANSTHAN MANGRUL (NATH) AND ANR.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 553 · Decided: 09-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. ABDUL NAZEER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
553
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 553
553
KISHOR GHANSHYAMSA PARALIKAR (DEAD)
v.
BALAJI MANDIR SANSTHAN MANGRUL (NATH) AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3794 of 2022)
MAY 09, 2022
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.28 – Rescission of contract for
sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of
which has been decreed – s.28 gives to the vendor or the lessor the
right to rescission of the contract for the sale or lease of the
immovable property in the same suit, when after a suit for specific
performance is decreed, if the vendor or the lessor fails to pay the
purchase money within the period fixed – This section seeks to
provide complete relief to both the parties in terms of a decree of
specific performance in the said suit without having resort to a
separate proceeding – Therefore, a suit for specific performance
does not come to an end on the passing of a decree and the court
which has passed the decree for specific performance retains control
over the decree even after the decree has been passed – s.28 not
only permits the judgment-debtors to seek rescission of the contract
but also permits extension of time by the court to pay the amount –
The power under this section is discretionary and the court has to
pass an order as the justice of the case may require – Also, time for
payment of sale consideration may be extended even in a consent
decree – On facts, as per compromise decree, the appellant was
required to pay the balance sale consideration on or before a
stipulated date – The trial court in its discretion had granted
extension of time for depositing the balance sale consideration
assigning cogent reasons – The High Court was not justified in
setting aside the said order and cancelling the sale deed.
Smt. Periyakkal and ors. v. Smt. Dakshyani, (1983) 2
SCC 127 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
 (1983) 2 SCC 127
referred to
Para 11
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
554
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3794
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.01.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No.
1637 of 2016.
Kishor Ram Lambat, Ms. Kashmira Lambat, Sachin Pahwa, Ms.
Jyoti thakur, Ms. Reeta Puniya, M/S. Lambat And Associates, Advs. for
the appellant.
Aaditya A. Pande, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Rahul Chitnis, Ravindra
Chingale, Ms. Anisha Mathur, Sachin Patil, Geo Joseph, Ms. Shwetal
Shepal, Advs. for the respondents.
The Order of the Court was passed by
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Delay in filing the application for substitution is condoned and
abatement is set aside. The application for substitution is allowed.
3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.01.2018 in
W.P.NO.1637 of 2016 whereby the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,
Nagpur Bench, has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent-
Trust and set aside the orders passed by the Trial Court granting extension
of time for depositing the balance of the sale consideration.
4. On 12.03.2007, the appellant herein filed a suit for specific
performance of an agreement dated 20.09.2002 executed by the first
respondent in his favour for the sale of agricultural land bearing Survey
No.3, admeasuring 10 H (Hactor), 50 R (Are) situated at Village
Murtizapur, Mangrulpir Taluk, District Washim, State of Maharashtra.
5. During the pendency of the suit, a compromise was arrived at
between the parties and accordingly the Trial Court vide Order dated
06.12.2010 decreed the suit in terms of the compromise. As per the
compromise decree, the respondent agreed to sell the suit land for a
total consideration of Rs.8,78,500/-. The appellant paid a sum of Rs.
Rs.7,31,000/- immediately to the first respondent. He was required to
pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,47,500/- within a period of one month
from the date of the compromise decree.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
555
6. The appellant moved an application on 11.01.2011 seeking
permission of the court to deposit the balance of Rs.1,47,500/- as per the
decree. The said application was allowed by the Trial Court, and
accordingly, the said amount was deposited by the appellant in the court
on the same day. On 12.01.2011, the first respondent executed the sale
deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the appellant. On
15.01.2011, the appellant filed an application for extension of time for
payment of balance of the sale consideration which was allowed by the
Trial Court vi

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