SATISH KUMAR versus KARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2016] 11 S.C.R. 614 · Decided: 21-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2016] 11S.C.R.614 
SATISH KUMAR 
v. 
KARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 7385 of2013) 
JANUARY 21, 2016 
(M.Y. EQBAL AND ARUN MlSHRA, JJ.) 
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s.20 - Specific performance of 
contract - Requirement of law for passing decree for specific 
C performance - Lease-hold plot recommended by DDA to be allotted 
to appellant- Receipt-cum-Agreement executed whereunder 
appellant agreed to sell his rights in the plot to respondent for 
consideration - Part consideration paid by respondent - Balance 
amount was to be paid by respondent subsequently - Responde11t 
filed suit for specific performance - Trial court held that the said 
D receipt-cum-agreement was an enforceable contract and on that 
finding decreed the suit which was affirmed by the High Court -
Held: Specific performance cannot be ordered if the contract itself 
suffers from some deject which makes the contract invalid or 
unenforceable - The plot In question was allotted by DDA on certain 
terms and conditions, which were embodied in the lease deed - One 
E such condition was that property will remain non-transferable for 
a period of ten years - In spite of noticing the aforesaid fact, the 
High Court failed to hold that a decree for specific performance 
cannot be passed - Both trial court and the High Court completely 
misconstrued the facts of the case and misunderstood the law laid 
F 
down by the Supreme Court in the matter of exercising discretionary 
power for granting a decree for specific performance - Appellant 
directed to refund sum paid by the respondents to the appellant 
alongwith interest @ 6% per annum. 
G 
Mayawanti v. Kaushalya Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 1 : 1990 
(2) SCR 350; and Parakunnan Veetill Josephs Son 
Mathew v. Nedumbara Kuruivila s Son and others AIR 
1987 SC 2328 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
1990 (2) SCR 350 
referred to 
H AIR 1987 SC 2328 
referred to 
Para9 
Para 10 
614 
SATISH KUMAR v. KARAN SINGH AND ANOTHER 
615 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 73 85 of 
A 
2013. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.2011 of the High Court 
of Delhi at New Delhi, in Regular First Appeal (RFA) No. 405 of2010. 
Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv., S. C. Sagar, Nikilesh Ramachandran, 
Advs. for the Appellant. 
Sunil Gupta, Sr. Adv., Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Mohit Chaudhary, 
Ms. Damni Chawla, Imranj Ali, Ms. Puja Sharma, Advs. for the 
Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
C 
M.Y. EQBAL, J, I. The question that needs consideration in 
the instant appeal is as to whether the so called agreement to sell dated 
6.1.1995, which is extracted hereinbelow, is enforceable in law for passing 
a decree for specific performance of contract. The said agreement 
reads as under :-
D 
"RECEIPT+ AGREEMENT DATED 6.1.1995 
Received a sum ofamountRs.2,30,000/-(Two Lac Thirty 
Thousand) from Karan Singh S/o Sh. Basti Ram Rio 
Village and PO Mahipal Pur New Delhi-I I 0 03 7 on sixth 
January, 1995 against our DDA alternative plot 
F.No.32(5)113/87/L&B/ Alt.12511 dated 11.8.1989 in the 
name of Sh. Jaishi S/o Sh. Ram Saran R/o V&PO 
Mahipalpur New Delhi. The total area of the above said 
plot is 400 Sq.Y ds. The total premium settled for the above 
said plot is Rs.4,60,000/-(Four Lacs Sixty Thousand) will 
be given at the time of receive the lease after execution 
at the Registrar Office. No payment will be given in 
between." 
Sd/-
Jaisi Ram 
E 
F 
In the presence of 
J .N. Sehrawat 
· S/o Ram Saran 
G 
V &_ PO Mahipal Pur 
NewDelhi-110037. 
Village Mahipal Pur 
2. The trial court after recording the evidence decreed the suit of 
plaintiff-respondent for specific performance and the High Court by the 
H 
616 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) II S.C.R. 
A 
impugned judgment dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and 
affirmed the decree passed by the Trial Court. 
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 
4. The plaintiff's case in the plaint is that a decision was taken by 
the Delhi Development Authority for allotment of a plot of land measuring 
B 
400 Sq.yds. in favour of the defendant-respondent. It was pleaded that 
in the year 1995 the defendant had desired to sell his right in the said 
recommendation letter which was to be allotted by the ODA in favour 
of the defendant. It was further pleaded that the defendant agreed to 
sell his right in the aforesaid recommendation letter and the plot to be 
c allotted at a price ofRs.4,60,000/-. For better appreciation para 6 of the 

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