SUKHWINDER SINGH versus JAGROOP SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 1 S.C.R. 512 · Decided: 28-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
512
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 1 S.C.R.
SUKHWINDER SINGH
v.
JAGROOP SINGH & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 760 of 2020)
JANUARY 28, 2020
[R. BANUMATHI AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.20 – Agreement of sale dtd.
03.01.04 executed by defendant no.1 (respondent no.2) in favour
of plaintiff (respondent no.1) to sell land – Plaintiff instituted suit
seeking possession by way of specific performance alleging that
the land was agreed to be sold for Rs.1,40,000/- and he had paid
Rs.69,500/- as earnest money – Plaintiff also prayed to set aside
sale deed dtd.11.06.04 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of
defendant no.2-appellant (purchaser of the property) and in the
alternative sought for refund of earnest money and damages– Trial
Court decreed the suit – Defendant no.2 filed petition to set aside
the ex parte decree and for retsoration of suit – Dismissed –
Eventually, Supreme Court allowed the suit to be proceeded – Relief
of specific performance granted to the plaintiff – On appeal, held:
Though the plaintiff examined himself, the document writer and the
witness to the agreement who stated with regard to the execution of
the agreement, the evidence to prove readiness and willingness with
regard to the resources to pay the balance sale consideration is
insufficient – Plaintiff in any event was not entitled to decree for
specific performance and possession against defendant no.1 –
Further, despite holding that defendant no.2 is bonafide purchaser,
it cannot be lost sight of that defendant no.1 received Rs.69,500/-
from the plaintiff as far back as on 03.01.04 and had the transaction
was concluded, the plaintiff would have been entitled to the benefit
of the land – There has been considerable appreciation in the market
price – Though in normal circumstance the return of the advance
received and the compensation for denial of the property was to be
paid by defendant no.1, however the defendant no.1 having lost
interest in the property has not appeared in the instant proceedings
nor is there any material to indicate that he  benefited from the
appreciation since even as per plaintiff he sold the property for a
   [2020] 1 S.C.R. 512
512
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
513
lesser price – In the peculiar facts of the instant case, defendant
no.2 who benefited from the property will have to repay the advance
and compensate the plaintiff – Decree granting the relief of specific
performance as affirmed by lower appellate court and High Court
is set aside – Appellant to pay Rs.3,50,000/- only to the plaintiff
within three months, failing which it shall carry interest at 12% p.a.
thereafter – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. 9, r.13 and s.115 –
Limitation Act, 1963 – s.5.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The suit being the one for specific performance
of the contract on payment of the balance sale consideration, the
readiness and willingness was required to be proved by the plaintiff
and was to be considered by the Courts below as a basic
requirement if a decree for specific performance is to be granted.
In the present case though the plaintiff examined himself as PW1,
as also PW2 and PW3, the document writer, and the witness to
the agreement who stated with regard to the execution of the
agreement, the evidence to prove the readiness and willingness
with regard to the resources to pay the balance sale consideration
is insufficient. In the absence of denial by the defendant No.1,
even if the payment of Rs.69,500/- and the claim by the plaintiff
of having gone to the office of Sub-Registrar on 15.06.2004 is
accepted,  the fact as to whether the plaintiff had notified the
defendant No.1 about he being ready with the balance sale
consideration and calling upon the plaintiff to appear before the
Sub-Registrar and execute the Sale Deed was required to be
proved. From among the documents produced and marked as
Exhibit P1 to P9 there is no document to that effect, more
particularly to indicate the availability of the balance sale
consideration as on 15.06.2004 and as on the date of filing the
suit. Despite the same, merely based on the oral testimony of
PW1, the Courts below have accepted the case put forth by the
plaintiff to be ready and willing to complete the transaction.
Instead of arriving at an appropriate conclusion on that aspect,
the Trial Court while answering the issues No.1 and 2 has
concluded that the amount of sale consideration has already been
paid and the fact that the Civil Suit has bee

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