P. RAVINDRANATH & ANR. versus SASIKALA & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1347 · Decided: 15-07-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Case Allowed

cites 12 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1347 : 2024 INSC 533
P. Ravindranath & Anr.  
v. 
Sasikala & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 7792 of 2024)
15 July 2024
[Vikram Nath* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Parties entered into an agreement to sell for sale of a property. 
Defendant no.1 sent various notices to plaintiffs to execute the 
sale deed. However, plaintiffs did not execute the sale deed. 
Thereafter, defendants executed sale deeds in favour of another 
persons (defendant nos. 6, 7 and CN). The plaintiffs instituted 
suit for specific performance and permanent injunction. Whether 
plaintiffs were always ready and willing to get the sale deed 
executed and registered.
Headnotes†
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.16(c) – Parties entered into an 
agreement to sell for sale of a property – The stipulated period 
was fixed as three months – But, as there was a Government 
order restricting registration of sale deeds – It was decided by 
the parties that the sale deed would be executed immediately 
after the cancellation of the said Government Order – 
Thereafter, defendant no.1 sent various notices at different 
intervals to the plaintiffs to come forward and get the sale deed 
executed – Plaintiffs did not execute the sale deed – After above 
correspondence, the defendants executed two sale deeds on 
22.04.1983 and on 22.06.1983 in favour of defendant nos.6 &7 
and third one in favour of CN – Plaintiffs instituted suit for 
specific performance and permanent injunction – Trial Court 
decreed the suit for specific performance and denied the relief 
of permanent injunction – Appeal against the judgment of the 
trial Court was dismissed by the High Court – Correctness:
Held: In the instant case, a perusal of the plaint reveals that the 
plaintiffs failed to plead specifically with details about the restriction 
said to have been imposed by the State on registration of sale 
* Author
1348
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
deeds relating to similar survey numbers and revenue sites – No 
details of the Government Order are mentioned – Neither the 
Government Order is placed on record as evidence to connect that 
such restriction was actually applicable to the land in question – It is 
recorded by the Trial Court as also the High Court, that these sale 
deeds (in favour of defendant nos.6 &7 and CN) were executed by 
the defendants 1 to 5 after depositing some betterment charges, 
getting the land converted and then effecting the transfer – The 
plaintiffs do not seem to have ever approached the defendants to 
get this kind of a status change and, thereafter, get the sale deeds 
executed – It has not come either in pleadings or in evidence of the 
plaintiffs that the alleged ban imposed by the State Government 
had been lifted but still the sale deeds were executed in favour 
of the appellants and other purchasers in 1983 – It is clear from 
the record that the defendant no.1 had given written notices 
requesting for payment of balance sale consideration and, thereafter 
communicating that advance amount had been forfeited and the 
agreement to sell had come to an end as the plaintiffs failed to 
get the sale deed executed within three months – The plaintiffs 
neither responded to the last communication of the defendant 
no.1 of December, 1981, nor did they take any steps to file the 
suit for specific performance of contract for more than one and a 
half years after the defendant no.1 had communicated forfeiture 
of the earnest money and the cancellation of the agreement to 
sell – There is not even a notice by the plaintiffs before filing the 
suit of showing their readiness and willingness by tendering the 
amount of balance sale consideration and sending a draft sale deed 
for approval and fixing a date for execution and registration of the 
sale deed – This Court is unable to agree with the findings of the 
courts below that the plaintiffs were always ready and willing to get 
the sale deed executed and registered – As a matter of fact, the 
conduct of the plaintiffs throughout gives credence and strength 
to the contention of the defendant nos.1 to 5 that the plaintiffs 
never had the funds available with them to clear the balance sale 
consideration and that they were middlemen only interested in 
blocking the property and, thereafter, selling it on a higher price 
to third parties and make profit thereof – Under such facts and 
circumstances, this Court is of the confirmed view that the decree 
of specific perf

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