NANJAPPAN versus RAMASAMY &ANR

Citation: [2015] 2 S.C.R. 606 · Decided: 24-02-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 2 S.C.R. 606 
NANJAPPAN 
v. 
RAMASAMY &ANR 
(CivilAppeal No. 2373 of2015) 
FEBRUARY 24, 2015 
[V. GOPALA GOWDAAND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
c 
Specific Relief Act, 1963: ss.16(c), 20 - Suit for specific 
performance by respondents on the ground that the appellant 
agreed to sell the suit property to him for Rs.45000 but did 
not execute the sale deed-Agreement to sell was executed 
27 years ago and time for performance of contract was D 
extended again and again totaling period of 8 years - Claim 
of appellant that he had agreed to sell property to respondent 
for Rs. 3 /akhs but in order to reduce registration charges and 
stamp duty, respondents requested the appellant to mention 
only Rs.45000 -
Trial court declined relief of specific E 
performance - Trial court also did not accept defence version 
regarding sale price of Rs.3 Jakhs- First appellate court held 
that having paid substantial sale consideration of Rs. 42500, 
it cannot be said thaf respondents were not ready and willing 
to take sale - High Court affirmed same - On appeal, held: F 
All courts below disbelieved version of appellant regarding 
sale price of Rs. 3 lacs - However, in view of passage of time 
and escalation of value of property, grant of discretionary relief 
of specific relief of performance would give an unfair G 
advantage to respondents -Advance amount of Rs. 42, 5001 
- to be refunded to the respondents with interest@ 9% p.a. -
In addition, the appellant to pay compensation of 
Rs.2,00,0001- to the respondents -
Evidence Act, 1872-
s.92- Equity. 
H 
606 
607 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the court 
HELD: 1. The appellant pleaded that as per the 
agreement between the parties, sale price was agreed 
to be Rs.3 lakhs and only to reduce registration charges 
B and stamp duty, in the agreement sale price was written 
as Rs.45,000/-. All three courts below disbelieved the said 
version of the appellant. As per Section 92 of the Indian 
Evidence Act, when the terms of any such contract have 
been reduced to the form of a document, no evidence of 
C any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted as 
between the parties to any such instrument for the 
purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to or 
subtracting from terms. There was no reason 
0 warranting interference in the said concurrent findings 
of the courts below. [Paras 9, 1 O] (613-B-C, D-F] 
2. As per recitals in the first agreement, an amount of 
Rs.25,000/-was paid by the respondents-plaintiffs to the 
appellant-defendant. Balance amount of Rs.20,000/-was 
E to be paid within 2-1/2 years thereafter and getthe sale 
executed. In the second agreement of sale, it was stated 
thatthe plaintiffs were unable to pay the balance amount 
within the stipulated period and get the sale deed 
F executed and, therefore, the second sale agreement was 
executed exten~ing the period for execution of sale deed 
for a further period of three years. Thus, the time for 
performance of contract was extended again and again 
totaling period of eight years. Under Section 20 of the 
G Specific Relief Act, grant of specific performance of 
contract is discretionary. Though the decree for specific 
performance is discretionary, yet the court is not bound 
to grant such a relief merely because it is lawful to do 
so. The court has to take into consideration the 
H 
NANJAPP.AN v. RAMASAMY & ANR. 
608 
circumstances of each case, conduct of the parties, A 
recitals in the sale agreement and the circumstances 
outside the contract have to be seen. The first sale 
agreement was executed about twenty seven years ago. 
The property is situated in Coimbatore City and over 
these years, value of property in Coimbatore City must B 
have considerably increased. In view of passage of time 
and escalation of value of the property, grant of specific 
relief of performance would give an unfair advantage to 
the respondents whereas the performance of the C 
contract would involve great hardship to the appellant 
and his family members. Admittedly, suit property is the 
only property of tlie appellant and the appellant is said 
to have constructed a house and where he is currently 
residing with the family. As compared to respondents, o 
the appellant will suffer significant hardship if a decree 
for specific performance is granted against the appellant 
Considering the circumstances, such as the 
construction of the residential house over the suit 
property, sale consideratio

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