LexRAM LAL versus JARNAIL SINGH (NOW DECEASED) THROUGH ITS LRS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1745 : 2025 INSC 301 Ram Lal v. Jarnail Singh (Now Deceased) through its LRs & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3245 of 2025) 25 February 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Suit filed by appellant seeking specific performance of contract based on an agreement of sale executed by respondents was allowed on 20-01-2012 and appellant was directed to deposit the balance sale consideration within two months. The judgment and decree was upheld by the First Appellate Court on 21-04-2015. Two years thereafter, the decree holder preferred execution petition wherein he sought permission to deposit the balance sale consideration. On 20-05-2019, the executing court permitted the decree holder-appellants to deposit the balance sale consideration and directed the Respondents to execute sale deed in favour of appellants after receiving balance sale consideration. Revision Application against the order of executing court was allowed by High Court on 30-8-2022 on the ground that it was too late in the day for the appellant (original plaintiff/decree holder) to deposit the balance sale consideration. Whether the High Court committed a gross error in passing the impugned order. Headnotes† Specific Performance – Decree for specific performance of contract based on an agreement of sale – Delay in filing execution petition and seeking permission of executing court to deposit the balance sale consideration – If rendered the decree of specific performance inexecutable: Held: In the present case, once the appellate court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court, there was evidently a merger of the judgment of the trial court with the decision of the appellate court – Once the appellate court renders its judgment, it is the decree of the appellate court which becomes executable – In the considered view of this Court, the Appellate Court, after deciding the appeal on merits, could have called upon the plaintiff to deposit the balance sale consideration by fixing a time limit – 1746 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports This would have at least given an opportunity to the plaintiff to fulfil his obligation – It is too much to say that since the trial court had granted two months time to the decree holder to deposit the balance sale consideration the same time period would apply even to the decree that may be drawn by the appellate court – What is executable is the decree passed by the appellate court – The appellate court owes a duty to specify the time period – In the case on hand, undoubtedly, there was a delay on the part of the decree holder in filing the execution petition and thereby seeking permission to deposit the balance sale consideration – Also, just because a decree of specific performance can be executed within 12 years from the date of original decree or from the date the appellate court affirms such decree that, by itself, does not mean that a decree holder deposits the balance sale consideration at his own sweet will – If the appellate court had failed to stipulate any particular time period then it is expected of the decree holder to deposit the same within a reasonable period of time – However, notably, the balance sale consideration of Rs. 4,87,000/- came to be deposited by the decree holder way back in 2019 – In the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court should not have interfered with the order passed by the executing court – Since there was a delay of 2 years in filing the execution petition and delay of 4 years in depositing the balance sale consideration of Rs. 4,87,000/- the respondents-herein (judgment-debtors) are entitled to simple interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the judgment and order passed by the appellate court till the date the balance consideration was deposited i.e. 20.05.2019. [Paras 43, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55] Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.28 – Decree for specific performance – Is in the nature of a preliminary decree – Contract between parties is not extinguished by passing of a decree for specific performance and it subsists despite the decree – Court does not become a functus officio after grant of decree for specific performance and it retains its power and jurisdiction to deal with the decree till the sale deed is executed. [Paras 44, 45] Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.28 – Decree for specific performance of contract based on an agreement of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.