LexP. R. YELUMALAI versus N.M. RAVI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 163 P. R. YELUMALAI v. N.M. RAVI (Civil Appeal No. 3213 of 2015) MARCH 27, 2015 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] Decree: Execution of - Decree holder did not make the deposit within the time stipulated by court nor the deposit A B c of balance consideration was made through the mode as stipulated by court - Payment made after stipulated date - D Execution application dismissed by trial court- Held: Since decree holder failed to comply with the terms of decree, suit stood dismissed automatically - Decree holder was rightly held to be not entitled to seek execution of decree which does not exist in the eyes of law. E Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: The judgment passed by the trial court showed that the period of one month granted for F depositing the balance consideration started from the date of decree. The decree was signed on 27.2.2007. Therefore, the period of one month started from 27.2.2007 and ended on 26.3.2007. After extension of two months was granted, the last date for depositing the G amount of balance consideration fell on 26.5.2007. As the Civil Court was not working on 26.5.2007 and next date i.e., 27.5.2007 was Sunday, the Plaintiff-Buyer was to deposit the amount on 28.5.2007, which was the H 163 164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A re-opening day. However, there is no evidence on record to show that he made efforts to deposit the balance consideration on 28.5.2007 or made an application on 28.5.2007. The R.O. is dated 29.5.2007 and deposit was made on 29.5.2007. Thus, the Plaintiff-Buyer failed to B comply with the decree and the suit stood dismissed automatically. The trial court rightly held that the decree- holder did not make the deposit within the time stipulated by the Court nor the deposit of the balance consideration C was made through the mode as stipulated by the Court, and that being the case, the suit will have to be deemed as dismissed. The decree-holder was not entitled to seek execution of decree, which did not exist in the eye of law. The trial court gave a finding that there was D no evidence to show that the plaintiff had made any effort to deposit the amount on the 28.05.2007. The application was dismissed on its merits and not merely on the technical grounds. The Plaintiff-Buyer has clearly defaulted on time of depositing as well as the mode of E payment. [Paras 12to14] [174-G-H; 175-A-G] Md. Alimuddin v. Waizuddin and Anr. (1998) 9 SCC 108: 1997 (2) SCR 199 - distinguished. F Johri Singh v. Sukh Pal Singh (1989) 4 SCC 403: 1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 17: 1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 17 -referred to. Case Law Reference G 1997 (2) SCR 199 distinguished. Para 11 1989 (1) Suppl. SCR 17 referred to. Para 14 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. H 3213of2015. P. R. YELUMALAI v. N. M. RAVI 165 From the Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2011 of the A High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in WP No. 6449 of 2010. WITH C .A. No. 3214 of 2015. Lata Krishnamurti, Dr. B. Kalaivannan, Neeraj Shekhar, P. R. Mala, Pranav Diesh, Karan Kalia, I. Elangovan, Ashutosh Thakur, Anjana Chandrashekar, for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. 1. Leave is granted in both the matters. B c 2. These cross appeals have been filed against the o judgment and order dated 22.08.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition (Civil) No.6449 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the High Court of Karnataka has set aside the order dated 15.02.2007 passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.439 of 2006 and remitted the E matter to the Trial Court for disposal afresh in accordance with law. 3. The factual background of the case is that on 04.08.2006, one P.R. Yelumalai, who is the appellant in the F first appeal, entered into an Agreement of Sale with N.M. Ravi, the respondent in the first appeal, is the absolute owner of the property. The total consideration for the sale was Rs.41,60,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs was paid as advance money towards the total consideration arryount. G Thereafter, the Seller vide legal notice dated 04.09.2006 sought to cancel the agreement of sale which was refused by the Buyer. This led to filing of a suit for specific performance of the contract by the Buyer P,R. Yelumalai (hereinafter H 166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2015] 4 S.C.R. A referred to as "the Plaintiff-Buyer"
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.