SUKHBIR versus AJIT SINGH

Citation: [2021] 4 S.C.R. 169 · Decided: 30-04-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
169
   [2021] 4 S.C.R. 169
169
SUKHBIR
v.
AJIT SINGH
(Civil Appeal No. 1653 of 2021)
APRIL 30, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Specific Relief Act, 1963: s.21 – Power to award compensation
– Agreement to sell land – Plaintiff-purchaser paid Rs.31.5 lakhs
out of Rs.32 lakhs – Failure on part of defendant to execute sale
deed in terms of the agreement of sale – Suit for specific performance
– During pendency of suit, land in question acquired under Land
Acquisition Act – Trial court passed decree for specific performance
directing defendant to execute sale deed on receiving balance
consideration – First appellate court upheld the order of trial court
– High Court held that plaintiff shall be deemed to have stepped
into the shoes of the defendant-original land owner and shall be
entitled to entire amount of compensation along with solatium and
interest etc. owing to the acquisition of the land in question – On
appeal, held: There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by all
the courts below on the execution of the agreement to sell by the
defendant in favour of the plaintiff; payment of Rs. 31.50 lakhs
towards part sale consideration and the readiness and willingness
of the plaintiff to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/
- – Therefore, as such, the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for
specific performance – However, in view of the fact that before the
final decree could be passed by trial court, the land in question
came to be acquired and, therefore, plaintiff would be deemed to be
in the shoes of the defendant and shall be entitled to the amount of
compensation, determined and awarded under the Land Acquisition
Act – Submission of defendant has no substance that as
compensation was not specifically prayed by the plaintiff in the
suit, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any amount of compensation
even considering s.21 of the Specific Relief Act – The decree for
compensation is passed as an alternate decree and in lieu of the
decree for specific performance – High Court rightly held that the
plaintiff shall be entitled to the entire amount of compensation
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
170
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 4 S.C.R.
awarded together with interest and solatium – However, at the same
time, the defendant-original land owner shall also be entitled to the
deduction therefrom of money value of the services, time and energy
expended in pursuing the claims of compensation and the
expenditure incurred by him in the litigation culminating in the
award.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There are concurrent findings of fact recorded
by all the courts below on the execution of the agreement to sell
by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff; payment of
Rs. 31,50,000/- towards part sale consideration by the plaintiff to
the defendant (out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 32 lakhs)
and the readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to pay the balance
sale consideration of Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, as such, the plaintiff
shall be entitled to the decree for specific performance. However,
in view of the fact that before the final decree could be passed by
the trial court, the land in question came to be acquired under
the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore the
question arose before the High Court what relief the plaintiff shall
be entitled to in the event the decree of specific performance is
required to be modified by an alternative decree. [Para 7][175-
H; 176-A-C]
1.2 Applying the law laid down by this Court in Jagdish Singh
and Urmila Devi to the facts of the case in hand, it cannot be said
that the High Court has committed any error in modifying the
decree for specific performance. As rightly held by the High Court,
as such, the plaintiff will be deemed to be in the shoes of the
defendant and therefore shall be entitled to the amount of
compensation, determined and awarded under the provisions of
the Land Acquisition Act. [Para 9][178-B-C]
Jagdish Singh v. Natthu Singh (1992) 1 SCC 647 :
[1991] 2 Suppl. SCR 567; Urmila Devi v. Deity, Mandir
Shree Chamunda Devi (2018) 2 SCC 284 : [2018] 1
SCR 797 – relied on.
2. Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellant
that as compensation has not been specifically prayed by the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
171
plaintiff in the suit, the plaintiff shall not be entitled to any amount
of compensation even considering Section 21 of the Specific Relief
Act. The aforesaid has no substance. The decree for 

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