SILLA CHANDRA SEKHARAM versus RAMCHANDRA SAHU

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 858 · Decided: 24-04-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

April :!.J. 
858 
SUPRE:.\ll~ COURT REPOHTS 
(I 964] 
SILLA CHANDRA SEKHARAM 
v. 
RAMCHANDRASAHU 
[K. SUBBA RAO, K. C. DAS GUPTA AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, 
JJ.] 
Specific Performance-Perfection of title after contract to 
sell-Applicability of s. IB(a)-'Subsequentlu to the sale or 
lease. meaning of-Specific Relief Act, 1877 (Act I of 1877), 
s. 18(a). 
/ 
The respondent executed an agreement to sell his house 
in order to meet family necessities for a certain sum on the 
condition that he and his mother would execute a sale deed 
in favour of the appellant. On the failure of the execution of 
the sale-deed the appellant instituted a suit for specific per-
formance of the contract. The trial court hel<l that the sale 
was not for legal necessity and therefore decreed the suit in 
part directing that the respondent would execute the sale 
deed for the alienation of his interest in the enuire house and 
that the appellant would be entitled to get possession of the 
same jointly with the respondent's mcther. The appellant 
appealed to the High Court and <luring its pendency the res-
pondent's mother died and therefore the onlv question urged 
on behalf of the appellant was that the respondent. having 
perfected his title to the entire house. be made to sell the 
same. The High Court did not agree with the contention and 
held that s. 18(a) of the Specific R-elief Act did not apply to the 
facts of th·c case as it comes into operation subsequent to the 
sale having taken- place. On appeal by special leave. 
Held: The High C0urt was wrong in not applying the 
provisions of s. 18(a) of the Act to the facts of the case. 
The expression 'subsequently to the sale or lease' in 
s. 18(a) means subsequently to the contract to sell or let. This 
clause cannot be restricted in •its application to cases ,,·here 
actual sale or lease of property had taken place. 
Kaluanpur Lime Works Ltd. v. State of Bihar. 
[1954] 
S C.R. 958. referred to. 
CivIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 398 
of 
196~. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
decree dated January 7. 1959. of the Orissa High Court in 
Appeal from Original Decree No. 57 of 1953. 
B. R. L. /yengal', S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta. for 
the appellant. 
K. Bhimsankaram. B. Parthasarthy, J. B. Dadachanji, 
0. C. Mathur and Ral'inde,. Narain, for the respondent. 
April 24. 1964. The judgment of the Court was deliver-
ed by 
R>gk1<bar ])nyal • .I. 
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-This appeal. by special leave, 
raises the question of the correct interpretation of s. !R(a) of 
the Specific Relief Act. 1877 (Act I of 18771. hereinafter 
called the Act. 
· 
7 s.c.u. 
::lUPREME COURT REPORTS 
859 
d 
d 
II 
]:'J(j.J 
Ramchandra, respon ent, execute an agreement to se 
_ 
the house in suit to the appellant. on February 21, 1951. s;u,, 
1·1mnh• 
The agreement stated that he was in sole possession and en-
s,u''.""'" 
joyment of the house which was his paternal property, that 
11,,,,,,.,,,~;d"' Sahu 
he was the Managing Member and Karla of the family and 
-
that for meeting family necessities and discharging certain 11""1" 1""' LJ,,,,,,z, 1• 
loans he agreed to sell his undisputed house for Rs. 6,000 /-
on condition that he and hi~ mother would execute a deed 
of sale in favour of the appellant with respect to the house 
within a period of one year from the date of the execution 
of the deed of agreement Ramchandra did not execute the 
sale deed and the appellant instituted the suit for specific 
performance of the contract. 
The trial Court held that the sale was not to be for 
legal necessit." and therefore decreed the suit in part, on 
the appellant's depositing a sum of Rs. 6,000 /- less .the sum 
of Rs. 300/- paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of 
the execution of the agreement to sell and less the amount 
of costs granted to the appellant against Ramchandra with-
in a month and directed that defendant No. 1 would exe-
cute the sale deed for the alienation of his interest in the 
entire house as covered by the agreement and that the plain-
tiff would be entitled to get possession of the same jointly 
with defendant No. 2, mother of Ramchandra. 
The appellant went up in appeal to the High Court 
against the dismissal of his suit with respect to the sale of 
half the house. During the pendency of the appeal Ram-
chandra's mother died and therefore the only question urged 
on behalf of the appellant at the hearing of the appeal was 
that Ramchandra, respondent, having perfected his title 

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