LexPRATAP LAKSHMAN MUCHANDI AND ORS. versus SHAMLAL UDDAVADAS WADHWA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 854 A PRATAP LAKSHMAN MUCHANDI AND ORS. ~- v. SHAMLAL UDDAVADAS WADHWA AND ORS. (C.A. No. 666 of 2002) B JANUARY 18, 2008 [A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s. 20 - Agreement to sell • properly executed in 1982 for consideration of Rs.1,20,0001- c - Vendor received Rs.10,0001- as advance money- Suit for specific performance by vendee - Decreed by Trial Coult - Order upheld by High Court - On appeal, held: Since agreement for sale was genuine, decree passed by Trial Coult was justified - However, in view of long passage of time and D steep increase in value of properly since 1982, vendee directed to pay the vendor Rs. 5 lakhs in addition to balance consideration of Rs.1, 10,0001- - On such payment, vendor "" directed to execute sale deed and hand over vacant possession to vendee - Occupation of cerlain other persons E who claimed the property in question by way of adverse possesssion found to be in the nature of permissible possession - Direction issued for their eviction - Equity The predecessor-in-interest of the Appellants in C.A.No.728 of 2002 had executed an agreement to sell in F respect of certain land property for a consideration of > ... Rs.1,20,000/- and was paid Rs.10,000 as advance money. As sale deed in respect of the said property was not executed within the stipulated time, Respondent-vendee filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to G sell. Trial Court decreed the suit and also directed eviction of the appellants in C.A.No.666 of 2002 who claimed the property in question by way of adverse possession. High -+ .. Court upheld both the orders of Trial Court. Hence the present appeals. H 854 PRATAP LAKSHMAN MUCHANDI & ORS. v. SHAMLAL 855 UDDAVADAS WADHWA & ORS. ·~ Disposing of the appeals and the connected A contempt petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1. As per the evidence on record, it is apparent that the agreement to sell in question was for the purpose of family necessity only and it does not lie in B the mouth of the sons i.e. the Appellants in C.A. No. 728 of 2002 to deny the agreement to sell for which a sum of Rs.10,000/- was already received. The Courts below have correctly appreciated the testimony and rightly reached the conclusion that the agreement to sell was for c Rs.1,20,000/- only. So far as the allegation of interpolation in the document in question i.e. agreement to sell was concerned, it was sent for examination by the Handwriting expert, and the report of the expert was received and the same was accepted. The opinion of expert was that there is erasure but not tampering with the document. The D document in question is genuine and has been rightly "' acted upon by both the Courts below; [Para 7) [861-B-E] 1.2. The agreement to sell was executed way back in the year 1982. Since thereafter, the value of the real estate E has shot up very high, therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 it would be equitable to not allow the sale of property to be executed for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-. The litigation has prolonged for almost 25 years and now at last reached ~ . the end of the journey. Therefore, to settle the equity F ... between the parties, it is directed that though the agreement to sell was genuine and it was executed for bona fide necessity but because of passage of time, the respondents shall pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs in addition to Rs.1, 10,000/- as out of Rs.1,20,000/-, Rs.10,000/- has G .. + already been paid as advance. On receipt of Rs.1,10,000/ - and Rs.5 lacs [Rs.6,10,000/-) the appellants in C.A. No. 728 of 2002 shall execute the sale deed for the property in question. [Para 8) [861-G-H; 862-A-B] H 856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R. A 1.3. The appellants in C.A. No. 666 of 2002 had claimed the property in question by way of adverse possession but neither before the trial court nor before the High Court they could show any justification for the possession of the property in question. The occupation B of the appellants in C.A.No.666 of 2002 was at- best a permissible possession and, since this Court is enforcing the agreement to sell and directing the appellants in C.A.No.728 of 2002 to execute the sale deed in respect of the property in question in favour of the respondent- C plaintiff, one cannot permit the appellants in C.A. No. 666 of 2002 to continue in possession of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.