V.R. SUDHAKARA RAO AND ORS. versus T.V. KAMESWARI

Citation: [2007] 5 S.C.R. 284 · Decided: 18-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
V.R SUDHAKARA RAO AND ORS. 
v. 
T.V. KAMESWARI 
APRIL 18, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
Tran~fer of Property-Two cross suits-One for recovery of possession 
of suit property-Other for specific performance of oral agreement of sale of 
C the suit property-Alternative, relief of refund of advance amount sought by 
plaintiff seeking specific performance-Suit for specific performance decreed 
and other suit dismissed by trial court-High Cou.•t decreeing the suit for 
recovery of possession and suit for specific performance decreed only to the 
extent of refund of advance money-On appeal, held: Order of High Court 
is correct-Relief of specific performance is discretionary-All the essential 
D terms and conditions of a well concluded contract has not been established 
in the case-Specific Performance-Relief-Nature of 
Plaintiff (predecessor oft he respondent herein) filed a suit for recovery 
of possession of the suit property after evicting the defendants (predecessor 
of appellant herein) and for permanent injunction. He pleaded that the property 
E in question (plot) was allotted to him and possession of the same was also 
delivered to him. The adjacent land was allotted to the defendants. Defendants 
sought permission of the plaintiff to stock their building material on his plot 
as they were doing construction work on their plot. Later, he came to know 
that defendants had constructed compound wall on his (llot as well. 
F 
In the written statement, the case of the defendants vras that the plaintiff 
entered into oral agreement of sale with grandmother of the appellant herein 
through father of the appellant (defendant). The defendant paid an amount 
towards part of sale consideration to the plaintiff on behalf of the vendee. 
Plaintiff after calculating the entire amount towards cost of the plot asked 
G the defendant to pay the balance amount by a demand draft. Plaintiff also 
promised to execute and register necessary sale deed in favour of the vendee 
within a week of the oral agreement and to obtain permission from Urban 
Land Ceiling Authorities. In pursuance of the oral agreement, the draft was 
made. Thereafter, the vendee purchased the adjacent plot of the suit property. 
H 
284 
V.R.SUDHAKARARAOv. T.V.KAMESWARI 
285 
As per the oral agreement, since both the plots belonged to the vendee the A 
common compound wall was constructed. 
Appellant-grandson of vendee filed a suit against the plaintiff for the 
relief of specific performance on the strength of the oral agreement for sale. 
Trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance believing the oral 
agreement of sale and dismissed the suit for recovery of possession. 
B 
In appeal against the same High Court decreed the suit for specific 
performance only to the extent of alternative relief of refund of the advance 
amount with interest. Suit for delivery of possession was decreed. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: The High Court has rightly concluded that there is no clear proof 
relating to the other terms of condition. The relief of specific performance is 
discretionary relief and except the oral evidence, there is no clear evidence D 
to prove several of the essential terms which have been taken note of by the 
High Court. The High Court, on analyzing the evidence, has come to hold 
Y 
that except Exhibit 8-1 and the oral evidence of DW I and DW 2, there is no 
other clear proof relating to the other terms and conditions of the contract 
which can be termed as essential conditions like delivery of possession and 
-. 
also the obtaining the permission from the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities E 
and therefore, it cannot be said that all the essential terms and conditions of 
a well concluded contract had been established in the case at hand. These 
conclusions of High Court on fact do not appear to be in any way unsustainable 
and on the other hand are in line with the applicable legal principles. 
[Paras 19 and 201 (292-G-H; 293-A-Bl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8303-8304 of 
2003. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.07.2002 of the High Court of 
Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Appeal Nos. 753 of 1989 & 
IOI4ofl989. 
G 
L.N. Rao, R. Santhan Krishnan, K. Radha Rani, Praveen K. Pandey, P. 
Vijay Kumar and C.S.N. Mohan Rao for the Appellants. 
P. Narasimha (for Mis. P.S.N. & Co.), for the Respondent. 
H 
286 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 5 

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