MADHUKAR NIVRUTTI JAGTAP & ORS. versus SMT. PRAMILABAI CHANDULAL PARANDEKAR & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 31 · Decided: 13-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
31
MADHUKAR NIVRUTTI JAGTAP & ORS.
v.
SMT. PRAMILABAI CHANDULAL PARANDEKAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5382 of 2007)
AUGUST 13, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Specific Relief Act, 1963: Nature of transaction between the
plaintiffs and defendant nos.1 to 3 – Suit for specific performance
of agreements for sale of agricultural land and in the alternative
for recovery of earnest money with interest – Case of plaintiffs was
that defendant 1 to 3 had executed agreement dated 20.9.1965 for
sale of suit land for a consideration of Rs.22,951 and that Rs.3,500
was paid as earnest money; that plaintiffs further paid Rs.2,000 on
24.9.1965 and took possession of 25 acres of land – Plaintiff further
averred that defendants executed a supplementary agreement for
sale and accepted an additional sum of Rs.500 from plaintiffs and
handed over the remaining portion of land to plaintiffs and the
remaining sale consideration was settled at Rs.11,951 after deducting
Rs.5,000 towards encumbrances and on payment of this amount
defendants 1 to 3 were liable to execute the sale deed in their favour
– Case of defendants 1 to 3 (vendors) was that the said agreements
were executed only as collateral security for a loan advanced by
plaintiff no.1 and not for sale of property – Held: There was not
even a remote suggestion in the agreements that there was any loan
or borrowing transaction between the parties and the said
agreements were being executing towards security – On the contrary,
the recitals and stipulations in the agreements were only in
affirmation of the agreement for sale and of the receipt of part
payment from time to time against the sale consideration – As to
whether the possession of the land in question was delivered to the
plaintiffs or not, could not have been taken as a factor decisive as
regards nature of transaction – Moreover, execution of the
supplementary agreement after notice and after receiving further
an amount of Rs. 500/- by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 could only show
   [2019] 10 S.C.R. 31
31
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
32
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
re-affirmation of the intention of the parties towards the sale
transaction – In the supplementary agreement, the defendants not
only acknowledged the receipt of part consideration to the tune of
Rs. 6,000/- but further agreed for adjustment of Rs. 5,000/- towards
encumbrances and, therefore, agreed to receive remaining Rs.
11,921/- at the time of execution of the sale deed – In view of the
dealings of the parties, this circumstance about execution of the
supplementary agreement only strengthened the case of the plaintiffs.
Specific Relief Act, 1963: Specific performance – Readiness
and willingness of plaintiff to perform his part of the contract –
The plaintiffs pleaded in the plaint that they were ready to get the
sale deed executed as per the conditions in the agreement for sale
and also stated that they served the notice, then supplementary
agreement was executed; and then, on many occasions, they asked
the defendant to execute the sale deed – Defendant No.1 in his
written statement merely stated a bald denial that such averments
were false and were ‘not agreeable to the defendants’ – The entire
emphasis of the written statement was on the assertion that the
agreement in question was not for sale and was obtained by the
plaintiffs towards security against the amount borrowed by defendant
No.1 – Held: The plea of the plaintiffs as regards their readiness to
perform the contract as per its conditions did not meet with
categorical denial from the defendants – This apart, even at the
time of entering into the agreement, the plaintiffs paid Rs. 3,500/-
against the sale consideration of Rs. 22,951/- – Moreover, and much
before the stipulated date of execution of sale deed, they made
another payment of Rs. 2,000/- against the sale consideration –
When the sale deed was not executed within stipulated time, the
plaintiffs served notice – Defendants thereafter executed the
supplementary agreement and the plaintiffs made payment of yet
another sum of Rs. 500/- while it was also agreed by the vendors
that the property carried encumbrance to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-,
which was to be adjusted against the sale consideration – Therefore,
the plaintiffs were left to make payment of about half of the sale
consideration – The plaintiffs showed their readiness and willingness
to perform their part of the contract and there did not operate any
personal bar ag

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