R. RADHAKRISHNA PRASAD versus SWAMINATHAN & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 7 S.C.R. 22 · Decided: 08-07-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 22 : 2024 INSC 463
R. Radhakrishna Prasad  
v. 
Swaminathan & Anr. 
(Civil Appeal No. 910 of 2024)
08 July 2024 
[Vikram Nath and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Appellant-plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of the agreement 
of sale and in the alternative prayed for refund of the advance sale 
consideration of Rs.18,00,000/- (initial advance sale consideration 
of Rs. 3,00,000/- and additional sum of Rs. 15,00,000/), mesne 
profits etc. with interest. Trial Court denied specific performance 
however, directed the defendant no.1 to refund Rs.18,00,000/- to 
the plaintiff with interest. High Court modified the decree and 
allowed the plaintiff to recover only Rs.3,00,000/- with interest. 
Whether the plaintiff proved payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- initially 
and another sum of Rs.15,00,000/- totalling to Rs.18,00,000/- to 
the defendant no.1.
Headnotes†
Specific performance – Suit for specific performance of the 
agreement of sale – Alternative prayer for refund of the advance 
sale consideration of Rs.18,00,000/- by defendant no.1 was 
made which was allowed by Trial Court – High Court allowing 
the appeal filed by the defendant no.1 modified the decree 
and allowed the plaintiff to recover only Rs.3,00,000/- with 
interest – Correctness:
Held: Both the Courts below found that payment of Rs.3,00,000/- 
on the date of agreement was duly proved in the evidence of PW-1 
and PW-3 – The bone of contention between the parties was the 
payment of additional advance consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- 
as evidenced by exhibit A-1(a) endorsement – Considering the 
entire evidence, the plaintiff has proved payment of advance 
sale consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- at the time of execution 
of the agreement – However, the case of the plaintiff as to the 
subsequent payment of Rs.15,00,000/- was not established by 
positive evidence as rightly held by High Court – No substance 
in the appeal. [Paras 11-13]
* Author
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
23
R. Radhakrishna Prasad v. Swaminathan & Anr.
List of Acts
Specific Relief Act, 1963.
List of Keywords
Specific performance; Suit for specific performance of the 
agreement of sale; Balance sale consideration; Ready and willing 
to pay; Advance sale consideration; Alternative prayer for refund of 
advance sale consideration; Specific relief of the agreement of sale 
declined;Specific performance denied; Decree for refund of money.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.910 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.06.2011 of the High Court of 
Kerala at Ernakulam in RFA No.25 of 2010
Appearances for Parties
V.Chitambaresh, Sr. Adv., K. Rajeev, Ms. Niveditha R. Menon, Bijo 
Mjoy, Advs. for the Appellant.
Zulfiker Ali P. S, Adv. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
This appeal would call in question the Judgment and decree of 
the High Court of Kerala by which the High Court has allowed the 
appeal preferred by the defendant no. 1 and modified the decree 
passed by the Trial Court whereby, in a suit for specific performance, 
the Trial Court had directed the defendant no. 1 to refund a sum 
of Rs. 18,00,000/- (Rs. Eighteen Lakhs only) to the plaintiff. Under 
the impugned Judgment, the High Court has allowed the plaintiff to 
recover only a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs only) with 
12% interest per annum from the date of suit till realisation from the 
defendant no. 1. 
2.	
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff 
preferred a suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 
26.03.1998 whereunder the parties entered into an agreement for 
sale of the suit property over which the defendant no. 1 had a right 
24
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
by virtue of Partition Deed no. 2304/81 and Sale Deed nos. 759/93 
& 1586/93 of the S.R.O. Chengannur. The defendant no. 1 agreed 
to sell the said property to the plaintiff for a sale consideration of 
Rs. 30,00,000/- (Thirty Lakhs only) and to handover the vacant 
possession of the suit property to the plaintiff within 06 months from 
the date of agreement. He received an advance sale consideration of 
Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lakhs only) from the plaintiff and also handed 
over the title deeds and encumbrance certificate to the plaintiff. The 
defendant no. 1 had availed of a loan from the defendant no. 2 - Bank 
by way of creating an equitable mortgage on deposit of his title deeds. 
T
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.