SURINDER KAUR (D) THR. LR. JASINDERJIT SINGH (D) THR. LRS. versus BAHADUR SINGH (D) THR. LRS.

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 137 · Decided: 11-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DEEPAK GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
137
SURINDER KAUR (D) THR. LR. JASINDERJIT
SINGH (D) THR. LRS.
v.
BAHADUR SINGH (D) THR. LRS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7424-7425 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 11, 2019
[DEEPAK GUPTA AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – s.16(c) – Performance of the
essential terms of the contract – Predecessor-in-interest of the
appellants entered into an agreement to sell the suit land with
predecessor-in-interest of the respondents for total consideration
of Rs. 5605/- – Out of this Rs.1000/- was paid as earnest money at
the time of execution of agreement to sell – The possession of the
land was handed over to the predecessor-in-interest of the
respondents (vendee) – Since there was some litigation with regard
to the property it was agreed between the parties that the sale deed
would be executed within one month from the date of decision of
civil appeal – Clauses of the agreement stipulated that in case
decision regarding the property in civil appeal is after one year,
then the predecessor-in-interest of respondents shall pay customary
rent to the predecessor-in-interest of appellants – Litigation referred
to in the agreement was decided after about 13 years – Predecessor-
in-interest of appellants failed to execute sale deed in favour of
predecessor-in-interest of respondents – Suit for specific
performance was filed by predecessor-in-interest of the respondents
– The suit was decreed by all the Courts below – Appellants
contended that since  predecessor-in-interest of the respondents
failed to pay the rent of the land, he was not entitled to a decree for
specific performance – Held: The suit property was handed over to
the  predecessor-in-interest of the respondents and he had agreed
to pay rent at the customary rate – Therefore, the possession of
land was given to him only on this clear-cut understanding – This
was a reciprocal promise and was an essential part of the agreement
to sell – Admittedly,  predecessor-in-interest of the respondents did
 [2019] 12 S.C.R. 137
137
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
138
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
not pay rent till the date of filing of the suit – The payment of rent
was an essential part of the contract – Equity is totally against him
– He by not paying the rent did not act fairly and forfeited his right
to get the discretionary relief of specific performance – Thus,
judgment and decree of all the Courts below set aside and suit for
specific performance dismissed.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. The first issue is whether the promises were
reciprocal promises or promises independent of each other. There
can be no hard and fast rule and the issue whether promises are
reciprocal or not has to be determined in the peculiar facts of
each case. As far as the present case is concerned, the vendor-
predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, who was a lady received
less than 20% of the sale consideration but handed over the
possession to the vendee-predecessor-in-interest of the
respondents, probably with the hope that the dispute would be
decided soon, or at least  within a year. Therefore, Clause 3
provided that if the case is not decided within one year, then the
second party shall pay to the first party the customary rent for
the land. It has been urged by the respondents that the High
Court rightly held that this was not a reciprocal promise and had
nothing to do with the sale of the land. One cannot lose sight of
the fact that the land had been handed over to the vendee and he
had agreed that he would pay rent at the customary rate. Therefore,
the possession of the land was given to him only on this clear-cut
understanding. This was, therefore, a reciprocal promise and was
an essential part of the agreement to sell. [Para 9][143-A-C]
2. Admittedly, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents
did not even pay a penny as rent till the date of filing of the suit.
After such objection was raised in the written statement, in
replication filed by him, he instead of offering to pay the rent,
denied his liability to pay the same.  Even if this Court was to
hold that this promise was not a reciprocal promise, as far as the
agreement to sell is concerned, it would definitely mean that
predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had failed to perform
his part of the contract. There can be no manner of doubt that the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
139
payment of rent was an essential term of the contract. Explanation
(ii) to Section 16(c) clearly lays down that the plaintiff must prove
performance or rea

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