LexURMILA DEVI AND OTHERS versus THE DEITY, MANDIR SHREE CHAMUNDA DEVI, THROUGH TEMPLE COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 797 URMILA DEVI AND OTHERS v. THE DEITY, MANDIR SHREE CHAMUNDA DEVI, THROUGH TEMPLE COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 462 of 2018) JANUARY 10, 2018 [A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] Specific Relief Act, 1963: s.21 – Compensation in certain cases – Respondent no.2 to 6 (defendant no 1 to 5) agreed to sell land to predecessor-in-interest of appellants who paid full consideration and took possession of land and constructed three shops on the suit land – Respondent no.2 to 6 gifted same land to defendant no.6-respondent no.1 – Aggrieved with the non-execution of sale deed and with gift deed in favour of respondent no.1, predecessor-in-interest of appellants filed suit for specific performance – Trial court declared gift deed in respect of suit land as null and void and decreed the suit – First appellate court upheld the judgment of trial court – During pendency of appeal before High Court, notification under s.4 Land Acquisition Act was issued and award passed for the suit land and three shops constructed thereon in favour of defendant no.6 – High Court accepted the plea of defendant no.6 that the land was acquired during the pendency of appeal and, therefore, decree for specific performance was not maintainable and modified the decree by ordering respondent no.2 to 6 to pay full consideration amount to appellant with interest – On appeal, held: s.21 empowers the Court to award compensation in certain cases – The name of defendant No.6 being recorded in the Revenue records, compensation was determined in its favour to the extent of amount of Rs.10,03,743/- – In view of the judgment of courts below whereby the gift deed was declared void, defendant No.6 had no right in the suit land and was clearly not entitled to receive any amount consequent to the acquisition of the suit land – Therefore, in the ends of justice, compensation of Rs.10 lakh is awarded in favour of the appellants out of the compensation received consequent to the acquisition of the suit land – The rest of the compensation, if any, received towards land and shops to be paid to the land owner that is respondent Nos.2 to 6). 797 [2018] 1 S.C.R. 797 A B C D E F G H 798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 1 S.C.R. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The suit land was acquired and compensation was determined in favour of defendant No.6 whose name was recorded in the Revenue records. No objection can be taken to the view of the High Court that consequent of the acquisition of suit land under the land acquisition proceedings decree of specific performance granted in favour of plaintiff could not have been maintained. The limited question is as to what relief the (plaintiff) appellants were entitled in the event the decree of specific performance was required to be modified by an alternate decree. [Paras 9, 10] [801-E-G] 2. Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act empowers the Court to award compensation in certain cases. The name of defendant No.6 being recorded in the Revenue records, compensation was determined in its favour. The compensation was determined to the extent of amount of Rs.10,03,743/-. In view of the judgment and decree of courts below whereby the gift deed was declared void, defendant No.6 is left with no right in the suit land and is clearly not entitled to receive any amount consequent to the acquisition of the suit land. In view of overall facts of the present case, ends of justice is served in awarding compensation of Rs.10 lakh in favour of the plaintiff-appellants out of the compensation received consequent to the acquisition of the suit land. The rest of the compensation, if any, received towards land and shops in question has to be paid to the land owner that is defendant Nos.1 to 5 (respondent Nos.2 to 6 to this appeal) after deducting an amount of Rs.10 lakh out of the said compensation. In event compensation has not yet been disbursed, the compensation be disbursed in the above manner. [Paras 11, 15, 16] [801-G; 804- F-G; 805-A-D] Jagdish Singh v. Nathu Singh (1992) 1 SCC 647 : [1991] 2 Suppl. SCR 567 ; Kanshi Ram v. Om Prakash Jawal and others (1996) 4 SCC 593 : [1996] 1 Suppl. SCR 330 – relied on Case LawReference [1991] 2 Suppl. SCR 567 relied on Para 12 [1996] 1 Suppl. SCR 330 relied on Para 14 A B C D E F G H 799 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 462 of 2018. From the Judgment and Order dated 02.11.2012 in R. S. A. No. 117 of 2002 and Final Order Dated 20.05.2013 in Review Peti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.