LexNADIMINTI SURYANARAYAN MURTHY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus KOTHURTHI KRISHNA BHASKARA RAO & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017) 11S.C.R.435
NADIMINTI SURYANARAYAN MURTHY (DEAD)
A
THROUGH LRS.
v.
KOTHURTHI KRISHNA BHASKARA RAO & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5517 of2007)
OCTOBER 09, 2017
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY .MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
B
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s.16(c) - Defendant nos.1-5
entered into an agreement did. 18.1)1.1983 with the plaintiff C
(respondenl No.J)for sale ofa house in his favour -Advance money
paid by p/aintif.f - Balance amount was to be paid at the time of
registration <!fthe sale deed- Howeve1; defendant nos.1 to 5 instead
of executing a sale deed in favour of !he plaintiff: executed
agreement dated 4.01.1983 in j{1vour of defendam no.6 (appellant)
w.r.t the same house - Suit filed by plaintifffor specific perfomwnce
uf agreement dtd. 18.01.1983, decreed by trial court - First appeal
by defendant no. 6, allowed by High Court- LPA filed hy plaintiff;
allowed by Division Bench - On appeal, held: Conduct of defendant
nos .. 1-5 was to avoid execution of the plaintiff's agreement and to
sell the suit house to defendam no.6 - This they could achieve on~v
by creating an agreement which was prior to !hat of the plaintiff's
agreement - Agreement did. 18. 01.1983 between p/ainliff and
defendant nos. 1-5 was a genuine and bona fide agreement while, ·
agreement dtd. 04.01.1983, set up by defendant nos. I lo 6, claiming
D
E
to be prior in point of time as against p/aintiff'.v agreement was a
bogus agreement and was created to scuttle the executio11 ·of F
plainti[f:v agreement - Furthe1: the plaintiff' proved his readiness
and willingness to perform his part of the contract - Trial caurt
and Division Bench were right in decreeing the plaintijf:v .mil for
specific performance of the agreeme1it did. 18.01.1983 against the
defendants - Judgment of Division Bench not interfered with.
G
Specific Relief -
D~fendant nos.1-5 entered into an agreement
dtd. 18.01.1983 with the plaintijjfor sale of a house in his favour
- Advance money paid by plaintiff - However, instead of exernting
the sale deed in favour of plaintiff; the defendants executed another
agreement in favour of defendant no. 6 w.1:t the same house and
435
H
436
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SCPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] ll S.C.R.
executed the sale dt'ed dtd 09.1!2.1983 in favour o/ defendant no. 6
-- Plainriff5· suit for specific performance of the agreement dtd
I 8.f! 1.1983 eve/lfuolly di:creed hy Supreme Court - Question as to
what .fornz of· clecree he passed in such u case lvhen suit proper(F is
so/ti h.F the OlVner to another JJerson (def no. 6 in the jJresent cast!)
and later he is directed to transfer the suit propertv to the plaintiff
- Held: The effect of the decree now is that the plaintiff is required
to pay the balance sale consideration to defendant nvs.1-5
whereafter the defendants will exernte the sale deed of the suit house
in plaintiff:' fi1vour and give irs possession to the plainti(T- Furrher.
sale deed did 09.02. J 983 between d4endant nos.1-5 and defendant
no.6 has become bad in law and would 1101 hind the plaimiO· -
Amount received by defendant nos.1-5 fiwn defenda/lf 110.6 (wherher
in fiill or in part) to he refimded back to defendant no.6 - Contract
Act - s.65 - Constitlllion of India -Art. 141 - Transfer of Property
Act, 1882 - s.52.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: I.l The Trial Court and Division Bench were right
in holding that the agreement dated 18.01.1983 was a genuine
and bona fide agreement with defendant Nos. I to 5 whereas the
agreement dated 04.01.1983 set up by defendant Nos. 1 to 6
claiming to be prior in point of time as against the plaintiff's
agreement a bogus agreement brought into existence only to
somehow avoid execution of the agreement dated 18.01.1983 of
the plaintiff. [Para 1SJ[442-G-H]
1.2 The reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the
Division Bench is proper and reasonable. It is based on proper
appreciation of evidence and hence docs not call for any
interference in the appellate jurisdiction for the following reasons.
On perusal of the pleadings and the evidence, it is also evident
that defendant Nos. I to S, in clear terms, admitted the execution
of the agreement with the plaintiff which they had entered into on
18.01.1983. They further admitted its part performance when they
accepted advance money from the plaintiff. In the light of these
material facts, if they had already entered into an agreement on
04.01.1983 with defendant No. 6 theExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.