Bonafide intentions necessary for getting a decree for Specific Relief.
In this post we will discuss about various ingredients required to get a decree for Specific performance and its relations with law of limitation.
Specific Relief Act Judgement Digest.
The Specific Relief Act is a legal statute dealing with reliefs or recovery of the damages of the injured person. This Act was enacted in 1963 following the approach that when a person has withdrawn himself from the performance of a particular promise or a contract with respect to another person, the other person so aggrieved is entitled to a relief under Specific Relief Act, 1963. This Act is considered to be in one of the branches of the Indian Contract law of 1872 . The current appeal is a plea to enforce specific relief with respect to agreement of sale by parties.
Facts in Brief:
Civil Appeal In the Supreme Court Of India
Sukhwinder Singh .…Appellant(s)
Versus
Jagroop Singh & Anr. …. Respondent(s)
The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking for decree of possession by way of specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 03.01.2004 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the land measuring 3 Kanals 4 Marlas comprised of Khewat No.36/35 Khatauni No.91, Rect. No.63 Killa No.2/2 (34), situated in village Dulla Singh Wala, Tehsil and District Ferozepur.
The case of the plaintiff was that the property was agreed to be sold for the total consideration of Rs.1,40,000/. Towards the said amount the plaintiff had paid the sum of Rs.69,500/ as earnest money. The plaintiff had further prayed in the suit to set aside the Sale Deed dated 11.06.2004 executed by the defendant
No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 since according to the plaintiff the same was null and void and did not bind the plaintiff. In the alternative, the plaintiff had sought for a decree to recover a sum of Rs.1,40,000/ of which
Rs.69,500/ had been paid as earnest money while the remaining sum of Rs.70,500/ was sought as damages.The defendants at the first instance had failed to appear and contest the suit. Accordingly, the Trial Court by its
judgment dated 14.06.2007 had decreed the suit. Though the defendant No.1 did not make out any grievance thereafter, the defendant No.2 who was the
purchaser of the property filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code in Misc. Application No.46 of 23.02.2011 seeking that the ex parte decree be set aside and the suit be restored for consideration.
Since the said petition was filed with delay, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed seeking condonation of delay. The Trial Court
having considered the same through its decision dated 07.08.2012 dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay, consequently the petition under
Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code was also dismissed as barred by Limitation. The defendant No.2 claiming to be aggrieved preferred Civil Revision No.5332/2012 (O&M) before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. In the said Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
The High Court had concurred with the decision of the Trial Court and dismissed the Revision Petition through its decision dated 12.09.2012. The defendant No.2 had carried the same before this Court in Civil Appeal No.1406/2015. This Court on taking into consideration that the defendant No.2 who was the appellant in the said Civil Appeal is to be provided an opportunity to contest the suit, had allowed the appeal by order dated 02.02.2015 subject to payment of Rs.1,50,000/ as cost. Leave to file the written statement in the suit was also granted. Pursuant thereto the defendant No.2 having paid the cost, filed the written statement and the suit was preceded in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto the impugned judgments were passed.
ALSO READ- SPECIFIC RELIEF VS. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE
Issues Involved : The council from the defendant no . 2 put forth the contentions stating that defendant no. 2 got into the agreement with bonafide intentions and no Prior Knowledge of any other agreement , even though the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2 belong to the same village , the defendant no. 2 had no knowledge about any agreement between defendant no. 1 and plaintiff and there is no evidence on record to prove the same . Further the council contended that defendant no. 1 has been staying and enjoying the Property since 16 years and has done useful constructions on the property as well . Moreover , the council also put forth his argument by stating that there is no proof on record to show the willingness of the plaintiff to execute the deed with defendant no. 1 . The Plaintiff has failed to clearly show his willingness and readiness to execute the deed in the current case . The council then seeked from the court to not enforce specific relief in the current case as the defendant no.2 is residing on the property with his family since 16 years and it would be great hardship for defendant no. 2 and his family and requested the court to set aside the decree passed by lower courts.
The council of the plaintiff then argued that the decree passed by the lower courts shall not be reversed on the grounds that that the defendants had connived with each other with respect to the sale deed and therefore, the same cannot be considered as a bonafide transaction. The learned counsel further contended that though an alternate prayer was made in the suit for the payment of damages as indicated therein, the property in question is highly valuable and as such the plaintiff should have the benefit of the appreciation as well. On the above grounds the council of the plaintiff sought to dismiss the appeal.
ALSO READ- SPECIFIC RELIEF SUIT ZIRAKPUR DERABASSI KHARAR MOHALI
Findings of Court: The Apex Court held that ,it is noticed that what had been paid as on the date of filing the suit was only the earnest money and the balance
The amount was deposited only on 03.08.2007 after the suit was decreed at the first instance on 14.06.2007 and not as on the date of filing the suit. Hence the concurrent conclusion reached by all the three Courts is an apparent error, the correction of which is necessary. In addition to that , the Lower Appellate Court has concluded that since the defendant No.1 has not caused appearance in spite of notice having been issued and he not being examined as a witness it could be gathered that there is connivance amongst the defendants to defeat the rights of the plaintiff. Such assumption is also not justified since the defendant No.2 had purchased the property for a consideration under a registered document and the
defendant No.2 was also put in possession of the property. In that circumstance the defendant No.1 who had lost interest in the property, if had not chosen to
appear and defend the suit the same cannot be a presumption of connivance in the absence of evidence to that effect. On the above grounds the court therefore reversed the decree passed by the lower courts and passed an order stating
- i) The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and decree dated 24.07.2015 passed in Case No. 915 of 16.11.2004/17.04.2015 and affirmed by the
Lower Appellate Court as also the High Court to the extent of granting the relief of specific performance is set aside.
- ii) The judgment and decree dated 17.04.2015 in Case No. 915 shall stand modified, and the appellant defendant No. 2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/ only to the plaintiff within three months.
iii) If the amount is not paid within the time stipulated the same shall carry interest at 12% per annum thereafter.
- iv) The plaintiff shall be entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs.70,500/ lying in deposit before the Trial Court with the interest accrued, if any.
- v) In the facts and circumstances, the parties bear their own costs.
Conclusion: It can thus be concluded that as the agreement by the parties and sale of property was under bonafide purchase and the sale agreement with the other party was never executed, the other party loses the right to enforce specific relief and demand possession. However it is subject to facts and circumstances of each case.
ALSO READ- ALSO READ- HOLDING PERIOD OF PROPERTY
This post was written by Yoshita Gwalani
For case specific advice, please contact best/top/expert property specific relief Lawyer Advocate in Chandigarh Mohali Derabassi Kharar Panchkula.
More on 99888-17966
