P. RAMASUBBAMMA versus V. VIJAYALAKSHMI & OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 1002 · Decided: 11-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1002
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
P. RAMASUBBAMMA
v.
V. VIJAYALAKSHMI & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 2095 of 2022)
APRIL 11, 2022
[M.R. SHAH AND B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s. 10 – Specific performance of
contract – Appellant (original plaintiff) filed a suit for specific
performance of agreement to sale – Respondent no. 1 (original
defendant no. 1) admitted the execution of agreement to sell and
specifically stated that she is ready and willing to perform her part
of contract – Respondent no. 2 holding power of attorney and other
respondents disputed the contention of respondent no. 1 on the
ground that the agreement was done without cancelling the registered
power of attorney and without the knowledge of respondent no. 1 –
Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of appellant – High Court set
aside the decree passed by the trial Court – On appeal, held: The
High Court, was not required to go into the aspect of the execution
of the agreement to sell and the payment/receipt of substantial
advance sale consideration, once the vendor had specifically
admitted the execution of the agreement to sell and receipt of the
advance sale consideration; thereafter no further evidence and/or
proof was required – High Court has committed a grave error in
reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court by
ignoring the vital facts of the case which are either admitted or
proved in the instant case.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Considering the fact that original defendant No.
1 – vendor – original owner admitted the execution of agreement
to sell dated 12.04.2005 and even admitted the receipt of
substantial advance sale consideration, the Trial Court decreed
the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated
12.04.2005. Once the execution of agreement to sell and the
payment/receipt of advance substantial sale consideration was
   [2022] 16 S.C.R. 1002
1002
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1003
admitted by the vendor, thereafter nothing further was required
to be proved by the plaintiff – vendee. Therefore, as such the
Trial Court rightly decreed the suit for specific performance of
agreement to sell. The High Court, was not required to go into
the aspect of the execution of the agreement to sell and the
payment/receipt of substantial advance sale consideration, once
the vendor had specifically admitted the execution of the
agreement to sell and receipt of the advance sale consideration;
thereafter no further evidence and/or proof was required. [Para
5.2][1010-E-G]
1.2 So far as the sale deeds executed by original defendant
No. 2 in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 and the decree passed
by the Trial Court that the sale deeds executed by original
defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are not binding
on defendant No. 1. The High Court has erred in setting aside
the decree passed by the Trial Court by observing that as there
was no specific relief/prayer of cancellation of sale deeds dated
03.05.2010 executed by the original defendant No. 2 in favour of
defendant Nos. 3 and 4, therefore, the Trial Court could not have
passed the decree that the said sale deeds are not binding on
defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff. As such, there was a lis between
the parties in respect to sale deeds dated 03.05.2005 executed
by original defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4
and even specific issues were framed, which on appreciation of
evidence were held against defendant Nos. 2 to 4. Therefore,
the High Court is not justified in quashing and setting aside the
judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court declaring that
sale deeds dated 03.05.2010 are not binding on defendant No. 1
and the plaintiff. [Para 5.3][1010-G-H; 1011-B-E]
1.3 The High Court has set aside the judgment and decree
passed by the learned Trial Court on the ground that the relief
under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, is a discretionary
relief and therefore, in view of the fact that original defendant
No. 2 had executed sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and
4, the learned Trial Court ought not to have exercised discretion
in favour of the plaintiff for passing the decree for specific
P. RAMASUBBAMMA v. V. VIJAYALAKSHMI & OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1004
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
performance. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case
narrated hereinabove and when the learned Trial Court specifically
gave the findings that defendant No. 1 – vendor specifically
admitted t

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