MADAMSETTY SATYANARAYANA versus G. YELLOGI RAO AND TWO OTHERS

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 221 · Decided: 24-11-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
MADAMSETIY SATYANARAYANA 
v. 
G. YELLOGI RAO AND TWO OTHERS 
Navember 24, 1964 
[K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND N. RAJAGOPALA 
AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877), s. 22-Decree for specific performance 
--- Wlum can be refused. 
The plaintiff was the highest bidder at the public auction for the sale 
of the plots of the !st defendant, but the !st defendant repudiated the 
cootract. So the plaintiff issued a notice to him asking him to take the 
011111cst money within 24 hours and the balance within a week thereafter. 
and to execute a sale deed. 
The plaintiff however did not take •ny 
further effective steps to enforce the contract for 7 months, as he was 
mentally worried on account of the illness of his wife and the demolition 
of one of hi• houses by the Municipal Corporation. Then one day, while 
puaing the suit-site he saw foundations being dug therein ant.1 \\'ithin a few 
aaya thereafter filed the suit for specific performance of the concracr, that 
is, about 7! months after the date of the auction. This !st defendant con-
tended that there was no contract at all because, there was no final bid 
.00 the plaintiff's bid was never accepted. The trial court held that there 
vtas a contract but that it was not a fit case for decreeing specific perform-
allCC. 
On appeal, the High Court gave the plaintiff a decree for specific 
performance. Tho 1st defendant appealed to the Supreme Court and con-
tended that the delay disentitled the plaintiff to the discretionary relief. 
HELD : Except for some delay, there were no circumstances which 
ihould induce a court to refuse, in its discretion, to give the relief of 
specific performance. 
[231 H-232 Al 
While mere Clelay is not sufficient to empower a Court to refuse the 
relief of specific performance, proof of abandonment or waiver of a riRbt 
i• not necessary to disentitle the plaintiff to the relief. 
There may be 
other circumstances, whi_ch it is not pc.,ssible or desirable to lay down, 
under which a court can exercise its discretion against the µJ3intiff. 
They 
must however be such that the representation by, on the conduct or 
neglect of, the olaintiff is directly responsible in inducing the defendant to 
change his position to his prejudice or such as to bring about a situation, 
when it would be inequitable to give him such a relief. [230 A, C-D] 
Case law considered. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 669 of 
1964. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated October 11, 
1963, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in C.C.C. Appeal No. 
12 of 1959. 
T. Lashmayya, P. Shiv Shankar, 0. C. Mathur, I. 8. Dada-
H chanji and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, C. Narasimhachar and Harbans 
Sinth .for the respondent No. 1. 
222 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1965) 2 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sobba Rao, J. 
This appeal by certificate raises the question 
whether the High Court went wrong, in the circumstances of the 
case, to give a decree for specific performance of an agreement to 
sell in favour of the plaintiff. 
A 
The facts may be briefly stated : On August 23, 1954, at 
B 
10 a.m. defendants 1 and 2, through their Auction Agent, de-
fendant 3, advertised and put their plots Nos. 1 to 4 situated in. 
Narayanguda opposite to Deepak Mahal Theatre to public auc-
tion. 
In regard to plots Nos. 2 and 3 the plaintiff offered the 
highest bid of Rs. 12,000/-. He wanted to purchase the plots 
for the purpose of starting his business. 
When the plaintiff ten-
C 
dered one-fourth of the sale price as earnest money in accordance 
with the terms of the auction, the defendants unlawfully refused 
to accept it. On August 30, 1954, the plaintiff gave notice to the 
3rd defendant and sent copies thereof to the other defendanlll 
calling upon them to obtain from hin1 the one-fourth amount of 
the sale price as earnest money within 24 hours and pass a receipt 
D 
therefor and accept the balance of the auction price within a 
period of one week thereafter in accordance with the conditions 
of the auction sale and to execute a sale deed duly registered in 
his favour. 
Defendants 1 and 2 did not give any reply to the 
said notice. . The plaintiff filed the suit in the Court of the 4th 
E 
Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, on April 18, 
1955, for directing the defendants, inter alia, to execute the sal• 
deed in his favour. Defendants 2 and 3 in their written-statement 
admitted that 

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