TEJRAM versus PATIRAMBHAU

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 567 · Decided: 03-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-~ 
TEJRAM 
A 
v. 
PATIRAMBHAU 
APRIL 3, 1997 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Document-Purp01ting to be sale agreement-Recital that consideration 
was Rs. 50, 00(}-48, 000 received as consideration for sale of land-Balance 
required to be paid within one year and sale deed required to be executed 
thereon-Sale deed not executed-Notice issued by respondent calling upon C 
appellant to execute sale deed-Suit for specific pelfonnance-Dismissal by 
Trial Cowt-High Cowt rejected the relief of specific pe1f onnance but directed 
payment with interest-Appeal-Held the document purp01ting to be an agree-
ment for sale was inf act not an agreement for sale : it was towards the unpaid 
illferest on the loan taken by the re:.pondent. There was a money transaction 
between the appellant and the respondent being money-lender, was taking D 
documents, purpolting to be an agreement of sale, from the loanees-In view 
of the doubtful conduct of both the paities, it was not possible to reach any 
satisfactory conclusion on the basis of evidmce as to what was the amount 
actually due and paid by the appellant to the respondent and what amount 
was still payable-Directions issued to meet the ends of justice. 
E 
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2834 of 
1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.85 of the Bombay High 
Court in F.A. No. 46 of 1979. 
p 
S.V. Deshpande and Pramit Saxena for the Appellant Uday Umesh 
Lalit for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division 
Bench of the Bombay High Court, made on July 30, 1985 in First Appeal 
No. 46/1979. 
G 
The admitted facts are that the appellant had 22.38 acres of land in 
village Gondia. A document purporting to be an agreement of sale was H 
567 
568 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 
A executed on April 20, 1972 for sale of 11.76 acres out of the said land for 
a consideration of Rs. 50,000. The recital therein and an endorsement on 
the foot of it is to the effect that a su~ of Rs. 48,000 was received as 
consideration for sale of the said lands and balance of Rs. 2,000 was 
required to be paid within one year and sale deed was required to be 
B executed thereon. Since the sale deed was not executed within one month 
prior to the date of the expiry of 3 years' period from the date of agreement 
on March 13, 1975, the respondent got issued the suit notice calling upon 
the appellant to execute the sale deed. On failure thereof, he filed the suit 
on the last day of the limitation. The trial Court dismissed the suit. But on 
appeal, the High Court, while rejecting the relief of specific performance, 
C directed payment of a sum of Rs. 62,280 inclusive of the principal sum of 
Rs. 48,000, interest accrued thereon and cost plus 6% future interest on 
the principal amount of Rs. 48,000. Thus, this appeal by special leave. 
The contention raised by Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the 
D appellant, is that the High Court and the trial Court concurrently dis-
believed the agreement purporting to be for alienation of the land but was, 
in fact, in truth and in reality a money transaction. Having come to that 
conclusion, the High Court would have agreed that the amount payable 
was towards interest on the unpaid loan taken by the appellant from the 
respondent. On the admitted finding that the respondent was money-
E lender, it would be unlikely that he had paid Rs. 48,000 as cash considera-
tion for that agreement; and would not have kept quite without asking for 
the delivery of the possession and then without paying Rs. 2,000 for 3 years 
and filing the suit on the last date. Under these circumstances, necessary 
conclusion would be that the purported endorsement was not, in fact, 
p 
receipt of the amount but dues owed to him. Shri Uday Umesh Lalit, 
learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that in 
view of the fact that the respondent executed endorsement as consideration 
of Rs. 48,000 for sale transaction and the capacity to pay the amount having 
not been put in issue, the conclusion reached by the High Court that the 
amount of Rs. 48,000 was paid as a fact is a finding of fact. Therefore, it 
G needs no interference. 
Having regard to respective contentions, the question that arises for 
consideration is : whether the respondent has paid Rs. 48,000 as cash 
consideration towards sale transaction? It is seen that document purporting 
H

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