LexR. KANDASAMY (SINCE DEAD) & ORS. versus T.R.K. SARAWATHY & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1099 : 2024 INSC 884 R. Kandasamy (Since Dead) & Ors. v. T.R.K. Sarawathy & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 3015 of 2013) 21 November 2024 [Dipankar Datta* and Sanjay Karol, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Trial Court dismissed the suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale by the buyer. High Court allowed the appeal thereagainst and granted decree for specific performance. Whether the impugned judgment of the High Court warrants any interdiction in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. Whether an omission on the part of the trial court to frame an issue on maintainability of a suit touching jurisdictional fact by itself takes away the powers of the higher court to examine whether the jurisdictional fact did exist for grant of relief as claimed. Headnotes† Specific performance – Suit for specific performance – Time when not the essence of the contract – Readiness and willingness not proved – High Court decreed the buyer’s suit for specific performance holding that time was not of essence as the sellers had received payments, without protest, even after the final date fixed for the performance of the agreement and that the buyer was ready and willing to perform her part of the contract – Challenge to: Held: Time was not the essence though the Agreement provided that “time mentioned in this agreement shall be of the essence” – On a bare reading of the two clauses of the Agreement, it cannot be said that the latter clause destroys the effect of the former clause altogether so much so that it has to be discarded – On the contrary, both the clauses were such that the same had to be read together and given effect upon ascertaining the intention of the parties as disclosed by the Agreement as a whole – The latter clause could not have been read divorced from the former, having *Author 1100 [2024] 11 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports regard to the intent of the parties that is discernible – Further, on facts, the buyer was not ready and willing to have the terms agreed by and between the parties to be performed – There was no readiness and willingness on the buyer’s part to pay the balance sale consideration and get the sale deed executed despite multiple reminders – Also, admittedly the buyer did not have enough fund in either of her bank accounts to pay the balance sale price – First appellate judgment and decree of the High Court set aside – Decree of the Trial Court restored – Suit filed by the buyer dismissed. [Paras 31, 33, 35, 36, 48] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Suit – Maintainability, ‘jurisdictional fact’ – Failure of the trial court to frame an issue on maintainability of suit touching jurisdictional fact, if takes away the powers of the higher court to examine whether the jurisdictional fact did exist for grant of relief as claimed: Held: No – I.S. Sikandar v. K. Subramani [2013] 17 SCR 24 held that in absence of a prayer for declaratory relief that termination of the agreement is bad in law, a suit for specific performance is not maintainable – However, A. Kanthamani v. Nasreen Ahmed [2017] 2 SCR 610 distinguished the aforesaid case and held that unless an issue as to maintainability is framed by the Trial Court, the suit cannot be held to be not maintainable at the appellate stage only because appropriate declaratory relief has not been prayed – Kanthamani though did not deal with the effect of non-existence of a jurisdictional fact i.e., what would be its effect on the right to relief claimed by the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract – Clarified – Omission on the part of the trial court to frame an issue on maintainability of a suit touching jurisdictional fact does not by itself take away the powers of the higher court to examine whether the jurisdictional fact did exist for grant of relief as claimed, provided no new facts were required to be pleaded and no new evidence led. [Paras 22, 24, 46] Suit for specific performance – Law as regards the principles governing – Discussed. Case Law Cited I.S. Sikandar v. K. Subramani [2013] 17 SCR 24 : (2013) 15 SCC 27; A. Kanthamani v. Nasreen Ahmed [2017] 2 SCR 610 : (2017) 4 SCC 654 – Clarified. [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1101 R. Kandasamy (Since Dead) & Ors. v. T.R.K. Sarawathy & Anr. Ferrodous Estates (P) Ltd v P. Gopirathnam [2020] 13 SCR 673 : 2020 SCC Online 825; Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani [1992] Supp. 3 SCR 798 : (1993) 1 SCC 519; Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalak
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.