S. RANGARAJU NAIDU versus S. THIRUVARAKKARASU.

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 617 · Decided: 08-03-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

S. RANGARAJU NAIDU 
A 
v. 
S. THIRUV ARAKKARASU. 
MARCH 8, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
B 
Specific Relief Act, 1963 : 
Promissory note-Execution of towards money due-As collateral 
security agreement to sell certain plots entered into-Suit for specific perfor-
C 
mance-Suit decreed by trial Court and confinned by first appellate Court and 
High Court-Prominent object of suit· being recovery of money with interest 
Court has discretion and not bound to grant specific perfomiance-Granting 
of such relief depends on facts and cimunstances of each case. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
D 
Art.13-Discretion exercised by Courts below-'-Normally not interfered 
Y 
but could be interfered with depending on fac.ts and circumstances of each 
-,. 
case. 
1be appellant had taken some loan from the respondent and his E 
brother. In order to recover the loan, the respondent and his brother filed 
three suits. 1be decretal amount due was Rs. 35,500 which after payment 
of Rs. 20,000 came to Rs. 15,500. 
1be appellant executed a promissory note for.Rs.15,500 indusl~e of 
interest @9% p.a. On the same day he also executed an agreement of sale, F 
for the discharge of the very same promissory note debt, agreeing to sell 
three plots of land. Respondent filed a dvil suit for specific performance 
of the agreement. 1be trial Court decreed the suit. It was confirmed in 
. appeal by the first appellate court as also by the High Court. 
In this appeal, the appellant contended that the agreement of sale 
was only collateral to the promissory note and that there was no consensus 
ad idem to sell the land under the agreement. 
G 
1be Respondent contended that since the Courts below exercised 
discretion, there was no need to interfere under Art.136 of the Constitution H 
617 
. 
('· 
.618 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The respondents are money-lenders and sought to recover 
the amount due to them. Since the appellant was not in a position to pay 
the amount due on the promissory note, he entered into the agreement to 
B 
sell the property and the agreement was sought to be enforced. Though the 
appellant had agreed to sell the property to respondents, the predominant 
object thereby would be for recovery of the dues· with interest. He who 
demands equity must do equity. Court has discretion. Court is not bound 
-l 
to grant specific performance. It depends on facts and circumstances in 
each case. (619-F-G] 
~ 
c 
2. The respondents had claimed in his suit alternative relief for the 
recovery of Rs; 21,000 with interest thereof @12% per annum. Rs. 21,000 
-; 
is inclusive of interest accrued on Rs. 15,500 @ 12% per auum. Therefore, 
in view of the facts of this case, justice would be met by granting the 
alternative relief sought for in the suit, namely, the decree for refund of 
D the money due to him with simple interest @12% per annum, as claimed 
by him. The decree of the courts below is accordingly modified and there 
shall be a money decree for Rs. 21,000 with interest @12% from the date 
~ 
of the suit till the date of recovery. [619-H, 620-A-B] 
E 
3. The appellant has undertaken to pay the amount within a period 
of six months from the date of this order. In case he commits default in 
the payment of the decreetal amount, the decree for specific performance 
shall stand confirmed. (620-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3140 of 
F 1986. 
~ 
From the Judgment and Order dated . 2.4.86 of the Madras High 
Court in S.A. No. 197 of 1986. 
M.N. Krishnamani and T.Raja for the Appellant. 
G 
K.R. Choudhary for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
,/ 
~ 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and decree in 
H Second Appeal No. 197/86 dated April 21, 1986 passed by the single Judg~ 
S.R. NAIDU v. S. TIIIRUV ARAKKAR.ASU 
619 
of the Madras High Court. The facts are very simple. The respondent had A 
filed three suits : O.S. Nos. 27/63 and 53/63 by him and O.S. No. 32/63 by 
his brother Sathappa Chettiar, in the court of the Subordinate Judge, 
Selam, to recover certain amounts taken by the appellant from the respon-
dent and his brother. The decreetal amounts due thereon were made up 
of a total sum of Rs. 35,500 which after payment of Rs. 20,000, came to Rs. 
15,500. Therefore, on December 30, 1977, the appellant executed a promis-
sory note, Ex.A-1, for the payment of Rs. 15,500 inclusive of interest @9% 

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