SUKHBIR SINGH AND ORS. versus BRIJ PAL SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 863 · Decided: 10-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SUKHBIR SINGH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
BRU PAL SINGH AND ORS. 
MAY 10, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Specific Reliefs Act, 1963/Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; 
S.16(1)(c)!Fonns 47 and 48 of Appendix AA (As amended by High Court of 
Allahabad)-Suit for specific performance-Pleadings-Defendant-
appellant's argument that plaintiff-respondents had not pleaded that they had C 
ready money for getting the sale deed executed-Held, not tenable-When the 
respondents had pleaded and proved by Sub-Registrar's endorsement that they 
were present in his office for having the sale deed executed and registered by 
the petitioner it would be explicit that they were ready and willing to peifonn 
their part of agreement-Courts below appropriately exercised their discretion 
for granting the relief of specific peifonnance to the respondents on sound D 
principles of law. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C) 
· ~ 
No. 11140 of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.4.96 of the Allahabad High E 
Court in S.A. No. 680 of 1995. 
Manoj Swarup and Ms. Lalitha Kohli for the Petitioners. 
Prashant Kumar, Ashish Dholakia and Sunil Ambwani for the 
Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This special leave petition arises from the order of the Allahabad 
High Court dated April 1, 1996 passed in S.A. No. 680 of 1995. 
F 
G 
The first petitioner is a purchaser from the respondent of the land 
under registered sale deed dated March 10, 1975 with a contemporaneous 
agreement of reconveyance to the respondent within a period of two years 
from the said date. The first respondent laid suit for specific performance 
pleading that despite his readiness and willingness the petitioner had H 
863 
864 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A avoided to sell back the property. He pleaded that despite his making 
several requests to execute the sale deed on receiving sale consideration, 
the petitioners went on assuring lo do the same but failed to execute the 
sale deed. Ultimately when the petitioners had agreed to have the sale deed 
executed and gel it registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar at Muzaf-
B 
farnagar on March 9, 1977, the respondents kept waiting on that dale for 
the petitioners to come and execute the sale deed but the petitioners did 
not turn up. On an application moved by the respondents of their presence, 
the Sub-Registrar had entered their attendance in his office register on 
March 9, 19i7. Though the respondents tried to reach out the petitioners 
on March 10, 1977 the petitioners intentionally avoided to execute the sale 
C deed in their favour. Consequently, their etforts to have the property 
reconveyed failed. So, they laid the suit for specific performance of the 
agreement. The petitioners pleaded that though they had executed agree-
ment of reconveyanee, the same was cancelled by another agreement dated 
June 4, 1975, Ex. A-1. They also pleaded that they were always ready and 
D willing to perform their part of the agreement. The respondents did not 
have sufficient means lo pay the sale consideration of Rs. 47,600. The 
respondent~ filed the ~uit only to blackn1ail the petitioner~. After framing 
appropriate issues, adduction of evidence and on consideration thereof, the 
trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the respondents had failed to 
prove that they were willing to perform their part of the contract nor have 
E they enough funds to repurchase the lands i,1 dispute. But on appeal, the 
Additional District Judge in C.A. No. 72/1992 allowed and decreed the suit 
on May 22, 1995 and decreed the suit and the second appeal came to be 
dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order. 
F 
Shri Manoi Swamp, learned counsel for the petitioner contended 
that the suit is not in conformity with forms 47 and 48 of Appendix AA of 
the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) as amended by the High Court of 
Allahabad. The respondents have not pleaded, as enjoined in Section 16(1) 
(c) of the Specified Reliefs Act, 1963 (for short, the "Act") that the 
respondents had ready money for getting the sale deed executed. The 
G decrees of the appellate Court as well as of the High Court are, therefore, 
bad in law. We find no force in the contentions. 
In paragraphs 5, 9 and 10 of the plaint the respondents have in 
substance pleaded that they had been and were still willing to perform their 
H part of the agreement and the defendants did have notice in that behalf. I

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