ZARINA SIDDIQUI versus A. RAMALINGAMALIAS R.AMARNATHAN

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 456 · Decided: 29-10-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 14 S.C.R. ·455 
ZARI NA SIDDIQUI 
v. 
A. RAMALINGAMALIAS R.AMARNATHAN 
(Civil Appeal No. 9947 of2014) 
B 
OCTOBER 29, 2014 
[M. Y. EQBALAND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act; 1963 - s. 20- Specific performance 
of agreement - First defendant-owner of 1/3rd undivided 
C share in the property appointed his brother-second 
respondent as power of attorney holder - Plaintiff's case that 
second respondent entered into an agreement to sell the said 
property to the plaintiff for certain amount- Payment of the 
entire consideration amount by the plaintiff, however, failure 
D of defendants to execute sale deed in favour of plaintiff -
Suit for specific performance by plaintiff- Written statement 
by both the defendants - Defendant no. 1 pleading that the 
power of attorney was given for limited purpose and denied 
agreement to sell in favour of plaintiff as also payment of 
E advance consiqeration; and that the value of the property 
was much more than the price agreed between the parties -
Second defendant pleading that sale agreement was 
obtained by the plaintiff by playing fraud - Suit for specific 
performance allowed by trial court, however, dismissed by 
the High Court- On appeal, held: Necessary ingredient has 
F lo be proved and established by the plaintiff so that discretion 
to grant relief of specific performance would be exercised 
judiciously in favour of the plaintiff- If a party to a /is does 
not disclose all material facts truly and fairly but states them 
in distorted manner and mislead the Court, the Court has 
G inherent power to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in 
order to prevent abuse of the process of/aw- On the facts of 
the case, in view of the conduct of the defendants and 
considering the phenomenal increase in price during the 
H 
456 
ZARINASIDDIQUlv.A. RAMALINGAMALIAS 
457 
R. AMARNATHAN 
period the matter remained pending in different courts, order A 
passed by the trial court upheld and that of the High Court 
set aside, with the condition that the plaintiff would pay 
additional amount to the first defendant. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The remedy for specific performance is 
an equitable remedy. The Court while granting decree 
B 
of specific performance exercises its discretionary 
jurisdiction. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act 
specifically provides that Court's discretion to grant C 
decree of specific performance is discretionary but not 
arbitrary. Discretion must be exercised in accordance 
with sound and reasonable judicial principles. The 
equitable discretion to grant or not to grant a relief for 
specific performance also depends upon the conduct 
of the parties. The necessary ingredient has to be proved D 
and established by the plaintiff so that discretion would 
be exercised judiciously in favour of the plaintiff. At the 
same time, if the defendant does not come with clean 
hands and suppresses material facts and evidence and 
mislead the Co.urt then such discretion should not be E 
exercised by refusing to grant specific performance. 
[Para 25, 34][470-G-H; 471-A; 476-A-B] 
1.2 Efflux of time and escalation of price of the 
property by itself cannot be a valid ground to deny the F 
relief of specific performance. But the Court in its 
discretion may impose reasonable conditions including 
payment of additional amount to the vendor. The plaintiff 
is not to be denied specific performance only on account 
of phenomenal increase of price during the pendency G 
of litigation. [Para 37][477-B-D] 
2.1 Although defendant no.2 held a registered 
power of attorney on behalf of defendant no.1 to sell and 
dispose of the property, but the defendants not only 
H 
458 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 
A made a false statement on affidavit that the power of 
attorney had authorized him only to look after and 
manage the property but also withheld the said power 
of attorney from the Court in order to misguide the Court 
from truth of the facts. Further, by registered agreement 
B the defendants agreed to sell the suit premises after 
receiving advance consideration but they denied the 
existence of the agreement in their pleading. Such 
conduct of the defendants disentitle them to ask the 
Court for exercising discretion in their favour by refusing 
c to grant a decree for specific performance. If a party to a 
tis does not disclose all material facts truly and fairly but 
states them in distorted manner and mislead the Court, 
the Co

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