T.M. BALAKRISHNA MUDALIAR versus M. SATY ANARA YANA RAO AND OTHERS

Citation: [1993] 2 S.C.R. 888 · Decided: 31-03-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
·~ 
A 
T.M. BALAKRISHNA MUDALIAR 
v. 
M. SATY ANARA YANA RAO AND OTHERS 
MARCH 31, 1993 
T 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH AND N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.) 
Specific Relief Act, 196~Section 15(b )-Representative in inter-
est--whether plaintiff falls in-Plaintiff's suits for specific pelformance of the 
-
agreements of reconveyance-legality of 
c 
Documents-Agreements giving a right of repurchase (Exhibits A.3 and 
_,__ 
A.4) and registered deeds of agreement of sale (Exhibits A. I~ and 
A.11 )--Construct{on-f'/aintiff's suits for specific peiformance of the agree-
ment for sale-Legality of 
D 
On 17.4.1962, 'A' and his mother 'B' sold their agricultural lands 
measuring 3 acres and 25 acres respectively by executing two sale deeds in 
favour of Respondent No.I and his father for Rs.10,000 and Rs.75,000 
respectively. On the same day, the respondents - vendees, taking Rs.500 
back, executed two separate agreements in favour of 'A' and 'B' giving 
).-
E them the right of repurchase at any time after 17.4.1969 but before 
16.4.1972. 
On 4.1.1963, 'A' and '8' executed agreements of sale in favour of the 
-
appellant for a consideration of Rs.1,30,000 in all. The appellant paid Rs. 
F 
30,000 till April, 1963 to 'A' and '8'. The appellant latter P!'id Rs. 12,500 
to 'A' and Rs.87,500 to '8' and the registered deeds of agreement of sale 
were executed by 'A' and '8'. Again a sum of Rs.l,000 was paid to 'A' and 
~ 
Rs. 4,000 was paid to '8' by the appellant. 'A' and '8' handed over the 
agreements executed by the respondent No.I and his father in favour of 
'A' and '8', to the appellant. 
"
G 
Respondent No.l's father died leaving behind his widow and son, 
respondent No.1. They refused to execute the reconveyance deed. 
~ 
The appellant in the Court of Subordinate Judge tiled two suits for 
specific performance of the agreements of re'.conveyance, delivery of pos-
H session and mesne profits one suit against the respondent No.I, his 
888 
r 
T.M.B. MUDALlAR v. M.S. RAO 
889 
mother and 'A' and the other one against the respondent No.I, his mother A 
and 'B'. 
In the first suit the appellant deposited the amount of Rs.9,900 in 
y 
the Court for payment to respondent No.I and his mother and Rs.I,600 
for payment to 'A' .and in the other suit he deposited Rs.74,500 for B 
payment to respmdent No.I and bis mother and Rs.9,000 to 'B'. 
-
The suits were decreed ex-parte. As 'A' and 'B' did not file any 
application for setting aside the ex-parte decree, the decree passed against 
them became final. 
c 
~-
Respondent No.I and his mother filed an application to set aside the 
ex·parte decree and the Court set aside the decree and allowed them to 
contest the suits. 
The suits were decreed against the respondent No.I and his mother 
against which they filed appeals in the High Court. 
D 
The High Court setting aside the decree and judgments of the trial 
Court allowed the appeals filed by the respondent No'.I and his mother. 
-,( 
The plaintiff aggreived against the judgments or the High Court E 
preferred the present appeals by special leave before this Court. 
-
Allowing the appeals, this Court, 
HELD: 1.01. A combined reading or the documents Exhibits A.3, A.4, 
~ 
A.IO and A.11, leaves no manner or doubt that 'A' and 'B' had made an 
F 
agreement to sell the properties in favour or the plaintiff and had also 
given a right to make the payment or such amount to respondent No.I and 
his father which they were entitled under the terms and conditions of 
Exhibits A.3 and A.4, the agreements of resale made in favour or 'A' and 
'B' respectively. The plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance or G 
the agreement for sale impleading 'B' and respondent No.I and his father 
,,. 
as defendants in one case and 'A' and respondent No.I and his father in 
another case and had also deposited the amount of consideration in the 
Court which clearly proved that the .plaintiff.was always ready and willing 
to perform his part .of ihelcliultra<:t.. There was no ground or justification 
for the High Court to dismiss the suits filed by the plaintiff. [894 E-G] 
H 
890 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1993] 2 S.C.R 
A 
1.02. The High Court was wrong, in taking the view that it "MlS only 'A' 
B 
c 
D 
and 'B' who were entitled to get reconveyance from respondent No.I and bis 
father and the plaintiff was not entitled to enforce such right by a suit for 
specific performance against respondent No.I and his. father. [894-H) 
1.03. The High Court further erred in holdin

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