LexRAMESH CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. versus ASRUDDIN (DEAD) THROUGH LRSANDANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 604
A
RAMESH CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS.
B
v.
ASRUDDIN (DEAD) THROUGH LRSANDANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 8427 of2014)
OCTOBER 06, 2015
[DIPAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]
Specific Relief Act, 1963: s. 20- Jurisdiction under; scope
- In the instant case, plaintiff's case was that he entered into
C an agreement with defendaTJt no. 1 on 21.06.2004 to
purchase land for Rs. 6 lacs- Defendant no. 1 accepted Rs.
4 lacs as earnest money- It was agreed that suit land which
was mortgaged with defendant no. 2 would be redeemed by
D defendant no. 1 before execution of the sale deed -
Non-execution of sale deed by defendant no. 1 - Suit for
specific performance of contract - Defendant no. 1 denied
the execution of agreement dated 21. 06.2004 on the ground
that he had already executed agreement dated 07.05.2004
E to sell the suit land in favour of one 'P' after receiving Rs.
1. 20 lacs as earnest money, therefore there was no occasion
to enter into agreement with defendant no. 1 to sell the same
land; that defendant no. 1 was in need of money and had
taken loan of Rs. 1.50 lacs from the plaintiff on 21.06.2004
F and when plaintiff made demand, defendant no. 1 asked 'P'
to make payment of Rs. 1. 80 lacs to the plaintiff-After said
payment by 'P', the alleged agreement dated 21.06.2004
stood cancelled - Trial Court held that it was not a fit case for
specific performance of contract and directed defendant no.
G 1 to pay back earnest money of Rs. 4 lacs - First appellate
court decreed the suit for specific performance of contract
directing defendant no. 1 to execute the sale deed in terms
of agreement dated 21. 06. 2004 after accepting balance Rs.
2 lacs from the plaintiff- High Court dismissed the appeal -
H Held: Though execution of agreement datecf 21.06.2004
604
RAMESH CHAND (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. v. ASRUDDIN
605
(DEAD) THROUGH LRS
between the parties was proved, but it was no where pleaded A
or proved by the plaintiff that he got redeemed the mortgaged
land in favour of defendant no.2 in terms of the agreement
nor was it specifically pleaded that he was ready and willing
to get the property redeemed from the mortgage - It is a fit
case where instead of granting decree of specific B
performance, the plaintiff can be compensatea by directing
the appellant to pay a reasonable and sufficient amount to
him - It would be just and appropriate to direct the appellants
to repay Rs. 4 lacs along with interest @ 18% p.a. from
21. 06. 2004 - If they do so, the decree of specific performance C
shall stand set aside.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 20 of Specific Relief Act, 1963, D
provides that the jurisdiction to decree specific
performance is discretionary, and the court is not bound
to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so.
However, the discretion of the court is not arbitrary but
sound and reasonable, guided by judicial principles. E
Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act provides the three
situations in which the court may exercise discretion not
to decree specific performance. One of such situation is
contained in clause {a) of sub-section (2) of the Section
which provides that where the terms of the contract or F
the conduct of the parties at the time of entering into the
contract or the other circumstances under which the
contract was entered into or such that the contract
though not voidable, gives the plaintiff an unfair
advantage over the defendant, the decree of specific G
performance need not be passed. In the present case,
though execution of agreement dated 21.06.2004
between the parties is proved, but it is no where pleaded
or proved by the plaintiff that he got redeemed the H
.606
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 10 S.C.R.
A mortgaged land in favour of defendant No. 2 in terms of
the agreement, nor is it specifically pleaded that he was
ready and willing to get the property redeemed from the
mortgage. Mere refund of rupees four lacs with interest
at the rate of 8% per annum, as directed by the trial court,
B would be highly insufficient. It would be just and
appropriate to direct the appellants (Legal
Representatives of original defendant No.1, since died)
to repay rupees four lacs along with interest at the rate
of 18% per annum from 21.06.2004. If they do so, the
C decree of specific performance shall stand set aside.
[Paras 8, 9] [609-E-H; 610-A, C-E]
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CivExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.