L.S. SIKANDAR (D) BY LRS. & ORS. versus K. SUBRAMANI & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 17 S.C.R. 24 · Decided: 29-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI, V. GOPALA GOWDA

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 17 S.C.R. 24 
l.S. SIKANDAR (0) BY LRS. & ORS. 
v. 
K. SUBRAMANI & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7306 of 2013) 
AUGUST 29, 2013 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act, 1963- ss. 16(c) and 20- Decree of specific 
performance - Grant of- Discretionary power of Court- Court to 
c see conduct of the party as well as the attending circumstances of 
the case - Suit for specific petiormance of the agreement of sale 
and for grant of decree of permanent injunction - Trial court held 
that 5th defendant was owner of the suit property pursuant to sale 
.deed in question and was entitled to take possession of the same 
from the plaintiff-- High Court ri;;versed the decree, granting decree · 
D for specific petiormance of the agreement of Sale in favour of 
respondent No. 1/plaintiff in relation to the suit property- Further, it 
granted decree of permanent injunction against the defendants 
restraining them from intetiering with respondent No. 1/plaintiff's 
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property- On appeal, 
E held: High Court failed to take into consideration the very important 
aspect of the matter, namely, that the agreement of sale in favour 
of the plaintiff was terminated and he had not sought declaratory 
relief to declare that the termination of agreement in the original suit 
was bad in law and therefore the suit for specific petiormance was 
not maintainable - Even assuming for the sake of argument that 
F the agreement was subsisting, the suit for specific petiormance 
was not maintainable in law in view of the breach of the terms and 
conditions of the agreement by the plaintiff-Keeping in view the 
purpose for which the agreement of sale was executed and the time 
stipulated in the agreement as per clause 6 of the agreement, the 
G contract should have been complied with, within seven months 
inC!uding the extended period but that was not done by the plaintiff 
- The plaintiff failed to petiorm his part of the contract- The plaintiff 
was a defaulter and was not ready and willing to petiorm his part of 
contract to purchase the suit property by paying remaining sate· 
consideration amount to defendant Nos. 1-4 as per the sale 
H 
24 
l.S. SIKANDAR (D) BY LRS. & ORS. v. K. SUBRAMANI & 25 
ORS. 
agreement and had been seeking time without justification - Grant A • 
of decree for specific performance by the High Court therefore 
wholly unsustainable in law. 
In a suit filed by plaintiff/respondent for specific 
performance of agreement of sale and for grant of decree of 
permanent injunction, the trial court framed six issues: 1) 
B 
Whether the plaintiff proved that defendant Nos.1-4 executed 
Agreement of Sale dated 25.12.1983 and delivered possession 
of the same; 2) Whether the plaintiff proved that he was in 
lawful possession of the suit property; 3) Whether the 5th 
defendant proved that he purchased the property under sale 
deed dated 30.05.1985 and was in possession of it; 4) Whether 
C 
plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part ofthe 
obligation; 5) Whether the 5th defendant proved that plaintiff 
was the defaulter and not ready and willing to perform his 
part of the obligation and 6) Whether the defendant proved 
that plaintiff put up construction after the completion of the 
D 
sale. 
On appreciation of the pleadings, documentary and oral 
evidence on record, the trial court recorded the findings of 
fact in the affirmative on issue Nos .. 1, 2 and 5 and answered 
issue No.3 partly in affirmative and issue Nos. 4 and 6 in the 
E 
negative. The trial court in its judgment recorded the finding 
of fact holding that 5th defendant was the owner of the suit 
property pursuant to sale deed dated 30.05.1985 and he was 
entitled to take possession of the same from the plaintiff in 
accordance with law and accordingly, partly decreed the suit 
in his favour. 
F 
Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the plaintiff 
preferred appeal before the High Court and prayed to set 
aside the same insofar as dismissal of the suit for grant of the 
decree for specific performance in respect of suit schedule 
property on the basis of sale deed was concerned. The High G 
court framed the following points for its determination: (i) On 
issue No.3, whether the 5th defendant purchased the property 
under the sale deed dated 30.05.1985; (ii) Whether the 5th 
defendant was entitled to take possession of the suit schedule 
property in accordance with law; and (iii) On-iss

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