M/S. GREATER ASHOKA AND LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY versus KANTI PRASAD JAIN (D) THROUGH LRS.

Citation: [2023] 16 S.C.R. 933 · Decided: 06-12-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 16 S.C.R. 933 : 2023 INSC 1055
933
CASE DETAILS
M/S. GREATER ASHOKA AND LAND DEVELOPMENT 
COMPANY 
v.
KANTI PRASAD JAIN (D) THROUGH LRS.
(C.A. No.7990-7991 of 2023)
DECEMBER 06, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether in a matter pertaining to speciﬁ c 
performance of the contract for allotment of plot, the refund of earnest 
money after a period of sixty years was reasonable.
Speciﬁ c performance – Contract for allotment of plot – Suit 
for speciﬁ c performance of the contract – Decreed by the trial court 
directing execution of sale deed – However, set aside by the lower 
appellate court, directing refund of earnest money with interest – High 
Court set aside the said order passed by the lower appellate court, 
upholding that of the trial court – Correctness:
Held: Perusal of the prayer made in the suit shows that in the 
alternative, only refund of earnest money along with interest has not been 
claimed, rather the buyer claimed adequate damages, which may include 
refund of the earnest money along with interest – Merely refunding 
the earnest money paid, after sixty years would be unreasonable as the 
respondent, after booking the plot, has been waiting all along as even in the 
litigation since 1986 – Price of the land in the area has increased manifold 
for the last sixty years – In the interest of justice, the impugned judgment 
and decree of the High Court is modiﬁ ed to the extent that instead of getting 
the sale deed of the plot registered, the contractor to pay stipulated amount 
as full and ﬁ nal settlement of claim in the suit. [Paras 11, 13]
934 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 16 S.C.R.
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Kanshi Ram v. Om Prakash Jawal and others (1996) 4 SCC 593 – 
referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7990-7991 
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.05.2018 of the High Court 
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No.2956 of 1998 (O&M) and 
CO No.16-C/1998.
Appearances:
Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Ms. Deepika Kalia, Keshav Khandelwal, Gaurav 
Sharma, Dhawal Mohan, Prateek Bhatia, Paranjay Tripathi, Advs. for the 
Appellant.
Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., Umang Shankar, Aniket Jain, Sanjay 
Singh, Vidyut Kayarkar, Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
Leave granted.
2. The order1 passed by the High Court2 in Second Appeal3, vide which 
the judgment4 of the lower Appellate Court5 was reversed and that of the 
Trial Court6 was restored, is impugned in the present appeal.
1 
Order dated 02.05.2018.
2 
Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
3 
Regular Second Appeal No. 2956 of 1998
4 
Order dated 07.08.1988
5 
Additional District Judge (I), Faridabad
6 
Order dated 29.03.1966 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad
935
3. The suit7 ﬁ led by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents 
(hereinafter described as ‘the respondent’) for speciﬁ c performance of 
contract was decreed by the Trial Court. In appeal, the lower Appellate Court 
reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court directing execution of 
the sale deed, however, granted the relief of refund of earnest money given 
by the respondent as part sale consideration along with interest. The High 
Court ﬁ nally upheld the judgment and decree of the Trial Court after setting 
aside the judgment of the lower Appellate Court.
4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that lay out plan 
of Ashoka Enclave Extension, Part-III, situated at Faridabad, developed 
by the appellant was approved in the year 1961. In 1963, an advertisement 
was issued by the appellant inviting applications from the public for sale 
of plots at the cost of ₹25/- per square yard. The respondent paid ₹500/- 
and ₹950/- towards provisional booking of plot No. 103, for which the 
receipts were issued on 01.11.1963 and 09.11.1963, respectively. As per 
the conditions of sale,25% of the cost was to be paid as earnest money, 
however, the same was not paid. Even the subsequent payments which were 
spread over, commensurate with the development of the project were also 
not made by the respondent. On 22.11.1963, the 1963 Act8 was enacted. The 
area, on which the colony was being developed, was declared as part of the 
controlled area. The appellant got relevant permission from the competent 
authority under the 1963 Act with the approv
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.