SHIVAJI YALLAPPA PATIL versus SRI RANAJEET APPASAHEB PATIL & OTHERS

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 739 · Decided: 16-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
739
SHIVAJI YALLAPPA PATIL
v.
SRI RANAJEET APPASAHEB PATIL & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 5012 of 2008)
APRIL 16, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.20 – Case of Respondents Nos.1
& 2 that four joint owners of a land agreed to sell their respective
shares to them – Two joint owners expired – Respondent No.3,wife
of one of the expired joint owners, got share of her husband recorded
in her name – Other co-owners (except Respondent no.3) executed
sale deed in favour of  Respondents Nos.1 & 2 and they were put in
actual possession of the land – Respondent No.3 sold her share to
Respondent No.4 – Aggrieved, Respondent Nos.1 & 2 filed suit for
specific performance before Munsiff against respondent Nos.3 &
4, which was dismissed – Appeal filed by  Respondent Nos.1 & 2
was partly allowed, however, the appellate Court refused to grant
specific performance of contract – During pendency of the appeal,
the appellant purchased the suit property from Respondent No.4 –
In regular second appeal, High Court allowed appeal in favour of
Respondents Nos.1 & 2 and ordered the specific performance of
the contract – Held: The possibility of injury to the interest of third
party does not, disentitle the plaintiff from specific performance
but it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case which
will be considered by the court in the exercise of its discretion – In
instant case, the whole case revolves around the question whether
Respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs got possession of entire land –
On facts, on the basis of the findings in a separate suit for permanent
injunction filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, it is well established
that the present Respondent Nos.1 & 2 were put into the possession
of the entire land – The decree passed by the Munsiff regarding
possession in an independent suit is indicative of the fact that the
plaintiff/respondent Nos.1 & 2 were in possession – Plaintiffs-
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 are entitled for benefit of s.53-A of Transfer
of Property Act – No illegality with the judgment passed by the
High Court in granting specific performance in favour of
   [2018] 6 S.C.R. 739
739
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
740
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
Respondent Nos.1 & 2 subject to payment of the sale consideration
as per prevailing market value – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 –
s.53A.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. It is a well settled law that the power to order
specific performance of contract is discretionary and parties cannot
claim it as a matter of right although it is lawful but such discretion
should be exercised judicially and prudently. [Para 10] [744-G]
2.  The possibility of injury to the interest of third party
does not, by itself, disentitle the plaintiff from specific performance
but it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case
which will be considered by the court in the exercise of its
discretion. The court may properly exercise discretion to decree
specific performance, in any case where the plaintiff has done
substantial acts or suffered losses in consequence of a contract
capable of specific performance. [Para 11] [746-B]
3.  In the present case, the whole case revolves around the
one question whether Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 got the possession
of entire suit land. It is undisputed fact that deceased husband of
Respondent No.3, along with other owners, entered into an
agreement with the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 but later on
Respondent No. 3 refused to execute the said agreement. After
perusal of the factual matrix of the entire case and peculiar facts,
it is clear that on the basis of the finding in OS No. 129 of 1984
(separate suit for permanent injunction filed by plaintiffs-
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2), it is well established that the Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 were put into the possession of entire land. The
decree passes by the Munsiff in the year 1987 regarding
possession in an independent suit filed in the year 1984 is
indicative of the fact that the plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
were in possession. Hence, in the  interest of justice and since
the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are in possession of suit land  for
long  time,  there  is  no  illegality  with  the  reasoned  judgment
passed by the High  Court  in  granting  specific  performance  in
their  favour  subject  to  paying of the sale consideration by them
as per the present prevailing market value. [Paras 15 and 16]
[747-E-G; 748-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
741
Elizabeth Madd

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