NIRMALA ANAND versus ADVENT CORPORATION (P) LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 706 · Decided: 30-09-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NIRMALA ANAND 
V. 
ADVENT CORPORATION (P) LTD. AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK, Y.K. SABHARWAL AND H.K .. SEMA, JJ.] 
Contract Act, 1872: 
Agreement for purchase of flat-Part payment made by purchaser-
C Before completion of constrziction lease of the' land was cancelled by 
Corporation-Seller could not perform his obligation-Suit for specific 
performance-Single Judge rejected prayer for specific performance but 
directed payment of damages-Affirmed by Division Beneh-On appeal, two-
Judge Bench Held, purchaser entitled to specific performance of agi:eement-
D Difference of opinion between the Judges on the amount to be paid by the 
purchaser to the seller in .tie11 of unpaid balance-Matter referred to three-
Judge Bench-Held, purchaser was ready and willing to perform her part of 
the contract and seller committed . breach in not performing his part of 
agreement by denying the possession of flat in question-Purchaser directed 
to pay to seller certain reasonable additional amount. 
E 
Appellant-purchaser entered into an a·greement with the sellers 
(Respondent Nos. I and 2) for purchase of a flat. Appellant made part-
payment of consideration amount. However, before completion of the 
construction, lease of the land was cancelled by the Municipal Corporation. 
Appellant filed a suit against the Respondents for the specific performance 
F of the agreement. Single Judge of the High Court found sellers guilty of 
having committed breach in carrying out the terms of the agreement but 
-
did not allow the relief of specific performance, but awarded certain 
amount in lieu of damages. The judgment and decree was affirmed by 
Division Bench of the High Court. Hence this appeal. The Division Bench 
G of this Court allowed the appeal by holding that the appellant was entitled 
to the specific performance of the agreement. However, there was a 
difference of opinion among the Judges on the amount to be paid by the 
purchaser to sellers in lieu of unpaid balance. Hence matter was referred 
to three-Judge Bench to determine as to whether the appellant/purchaser 
should be directed to pay any additional sum, and if so, what amount. "· 
H 
7~ 
NIRMALA ANAND v. ADVENT CORPORATION (P) LTD. 
707 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. I. It is evident that the appellant is ready to take 
incomplete flat and pay further sum on account of phenomenal increase 
in the market price of the flat during the pendency of this litigation for 
over three decades. There appears no reason why the appellant cannot 
A 
be allowed to have the entire benefit of manifold 'mega increase of the value B 
of real estate property in the locality. It would not be unreasonable and 
inequitable to make the appellant the sole beneficiary of the escalation of 
real estate prices and the enhanced value of the flat in question. 1710-A-C) 
2. While balancing the equities, one of the consideration to be kept C 
in view is as to who is the defaulting party. It is also to be borne in mind 
whether a party is trying to take undue advantage over the other as also 
the hardship that may be caused to the defendant by directing the specific 
performance. There may be other circumstances on which parties may 
not have any control. The totality of the circumstances is required to be 
seen. In the instant case, the suit was filed by the plaintiff within a month D 
of the date when the posses~i()n under the agreement was to be delivered 
to her. She had already i)aid more than 50% of the sale consideration. 
There was no occasion for her to pay the balance consideration to the 
seller. The Courts have concurrently found that the appellant has always 
been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and the seller 
committed breach in not carrying out the terms of the agreement. While E 
others left, the appellant has been single handedly fighting for her rights 
under the agreement. She has agreed to take the flat on as-is-where-is-
basis without claiming any reduction in purchase price and without 
making the seller liable for anything incomplete in the building. 
(710-F-H; 711-A-B) F 
3. For the revival of the building plans, revival of lease and other 
such steps, the sellers and/or their assignees may have to take steps as per 
agreement between them but to ask the appellant to pay to Respondeot 
Nos. 1 and 2, a sum of Rs. 40,00,000 would be too onerous and would 
almost amount to denying her specific performance. It would also amount G 
t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.