LexT. D. VIVEK KUMAR & ANR versus RANBIR CHAUDHARY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R. T. D. VIVEK KUMAR & ANR. v. RANBIR CHAUDHARY (Civil Appeal Nos. 2514-2516 of 2023) APRIL 28, 2023 [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.] Specific Relief – Denial of – Appellants (original defendants), entered into a “sale agreement” with the respondent (original plaintiff) for the sale of a plot of land – A total amount of Rs. 2 lakh was paid as earnest money by the respondent – Respondent filed a civil suit seeking specific performance of the sale agreement and consequential relief of injunction – The suit was resisted by the appellants on the ground that as per the agreement to sell and on failure of the appellants to execute the sale deed, the respondent shall be entitled to double the amount given as an advance – The trial court refused to pass a decree for specific performance of the sale agreement but decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 4 lakhs, i.e., double of the earnest money – First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal – High Court in second appeal granted the relief of specific performance – On appeal, held: As per clause 2 of the sale agreement, on failure on the part of the seller to execute the sale deed within the stipulated time, the purchaser/buyer shall be entitled to the double of the amount given as an advance – Plaintiff is bound by the terms and conditions stipulated in the sale agreement – Appeal allowed – Judgment of High Court in second appeal set aside – Judgment of trial Court affirmed by the First Appellate Court restored. P. D’Souza v. Shondrilo Naidu (2004) 6 SCC 649 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 186; M. L. Devender Singh v. Syed Khaja (1973) 2 SCC 515 : [1974] 1 SCR 312 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 186 referred to Para 3.3 [1974] 1 SCR 312 referred to Para 6.4 [2023] 4 S.C.R. 540 540 A B C D E F G H 541 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2514- 2516 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.2018 in RA No.149 of 2016 and dated 27.07.2016 in RSA No.596 of 2012 and XOBJ No.10 of 2012 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv., Amit Anand Tiwari, Ms. Saushriya Havelia, Advs. for the Appellants. Daya Krishan Sharma, Rohit Vats, Shubham Rana, Vikrant Y. S. Narula, Mrs. Sunita Sharma, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. R. SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Review Application No. 149-C/2016 in RSA No. 596/2012 and XOBJC -10C/2010, the original defendants have preferred the present appeals. 2. The facts leading to the present appeals are as under: - 2.1 That a “sale agreement” was entered into between appellant No. 1 as attorney of appellant No. 2 (original defendants) and the respondent herein (original plaintiff) for sale of the suit plot in question for a consideration of Rs. 17,61,700/-. The date for execution and registration of sale deed was tentatively fixed as 18.09.2004. A total amount of Rs. 2 lakh was paid as earnest money by the respondent. That thereafter, respondent – original plaintiff instituted the civil suit in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, seeking specific performance of sale agreement and consequential relief of injunction. The suit was resisted by the appellants herein – original defendants on all grounds including the ground that even as per the agreement to sell and on failure of the defendants to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff shall be entitled to double the amount given as an advance and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree for specific performance. 2.2 The learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 16.01.2010 refused to pass a decree for specific performance of the sale agreement, however, decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 4 lakhs i.e., double of the earnest money paid by the plaintiff in accordance with the contract i.e., sale agreement. T. D. VIVEK KUMAR & ANR. v. RANBIR CHAUDHARY A B C D E F G H 542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 4 S.C.R. 2.3 The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court refusing to grant the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement, the respondent herein – original plaintiff preferred the second appeal before the High Court. The appellant(s) also filed the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.