RAM KHILONA AND ORS. versus SARDAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 187 · Decided: 16-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAM KHILONA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
SARDAR AND ORS. 
JULY 16, 2002 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND K.G. BALAKRJSHNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section /00-Second appeal-Agreement 
of sale of land by covenantors-Alteration made in the agreement deed by 
introducing two independent marginal witnesses subsequently-Suit for specific C 
performance of contract of sale on basis of agreement deed decreed and suit 
for declaration of rights of vendees dismissed-Upholding of decrees of lower 
court, High Court holding alterations in the agreement deed as material 
alterations-Correctness of-Held, order of High Court not sustainable since 
alterations made subsequently did not bring about any change in validity and 
enforceability of agreement of sale-Deeds-Material alterations. 
D 
Covenantors entered into an agreement of sale of land. However, 
they did not execute the sale deed in favour of the appellants-covenantees. 
Subsequently alterations were made in the agreement deed by introducing 
two independent marginal witnesses. Appellants-covenantees then filed suit 
for specific performance of contract of sale on the basis of the agreement E 
and it was decreed. Respondent Nos. I and 2 filed suit for declaration of 
rights of the vendees over the land against the appellants and respondent 
Nos.3 and 4, which was dismissed. Appeals were also dismissed. Aggrieved, 
respondents filed second appeals. High Court held that the interpolation 
for introducing the two independent marginal witnesses in the agreement F 
of sale was made so as to give authenticity to the said agreement of sale. 
It held that the alteration made in the agreement deed by the covenantors 
is material alteration which had the result of avoiding the agreement, and 
rendering it void ab initio having no binding effect on the vendor and thus 
the agreement cannot be enforced. Hence the present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I. I. The approach of the High Court in the second appeal 
was clearly against the law and spirit of Section 100 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure. Further, the view taken by the High Court that the 
187 
G 
H 
188 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A interpolation said to have been made by the covenantees in the agreement 
of sale does not stand scrutiny under law. Also such alteration, assuming 
that it was made subsequently, did not bring about any change in the 
validity and enforceability of the agreement of sale. The finding recorded 
by the High Court appears to be based on surmise. Therefore, the 
B judgment is clearly unsustainable. (197-F-H] 
1.2. High Court observed that the covenantees-appellants might have 
had an apprehension that as the marginal witnesses in the original 
document were persons closely related to them, the court may not readily 
accept the case of the appellants regarding the agreement of sale and, 
C therefore, they subsequently introduced two independent persons as 
marginal witnesses in the document after its execution, which amounted 
to interpolating with the documents. This was considered by the courts 
and was not believed. The observations of the first appellate court were 
mere observations, which was not taken as a substantial matter against 
the credibility and acceptability of the case of the appellants in the suit 
D for specific performance. Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had 
concurrently accepted the case of the appellants in the suit for specific 
performance and had rejected the case of the respondents in suit for 
declaration of rights. Courts in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction 
vested in them had decreed the suit for specific performance of the 
E agreement of sale. The High Court in its impugned judgment did not 
discuss any legality by the courts below in taking the decision. (197-B-E] 
F 
MS. Anirudhan v. Thomco's Bank Ltd., AIR (1963) SC 746 and Kaliana 
Gounder v. Palani Gounder and Anr., AIR (1970] SC 1942, referred to. 
Halsbury 's Laws of England, 4th Edition at page 552 para 1378, referred 
to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 238-39 of 
1997. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.9.1996 of the High Court of 
Allahabad in S.A. 1974/78 and 1975/78. 
E.C. Agrawala and M.P. Shorewala for the Appellants. -
D.B. Vohra, Roopendra Singh, K.K. Gupta and Sanjeev Anand for 
H the Respondent. 
RAM KHILONA v. SARDAR [D.P. MOHAPA IRA, J.] 
189 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
D.P. MOHAPATRA, J, The judg!nent dated 24

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