Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Kuppayee vs P. Subramanian on 19 December, 2024
SLP(C) Nos.8303/2022
ITEM NO.25 +46 COURT NO.15 SECTION XII
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos.8303/2022
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-03-2022
in SA No. 1074/2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras]
KUPPAYEE & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
P. SUBRAMANIAN & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 66913/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 66914/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION NO.8831/2022 (FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 71682/2022 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 71684/2022, IA No. 71682/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 71684/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) Date : 19-12-2024 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, AOR Mr. Vaibhav, Adv.Signature Not Verified
For Respondent(s) Digitally signed by CHANDRESH Mr. V Prabhakar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S. Rajappa, AOR Date: 2024.12.21 18:16:32 IST Reason:
Ms. Jyoti Parashar, Adv.
Ms. G Dhivyasri, Adv.
Mr. R Gowrishankar, Adv.
Mr. Naanchil J Deekshith, Adv. SLP(C) Nos.8303/2022 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard Mr.Siddharth Dave and Mr.Senthil Jagadeesan, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. V Prabhakar, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. We take notice of para 18(i) of the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. It reads thus:-
“18(i). For the reasons extracted supra, the appellant/defendant has not willing to cooperate for completion of the sale transaction and hence the order passed by the lower Appellate Court ordering specific performance is just and proper for the different reasoning as discussed supra. Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court does not warrant any interference. Before parting the suit sale agreement is of the year 1994 and in view of the escalation of the real estate the value of the property could be more as compared to the agreed price and therefore, the decision reported in 2017 (1) CTC 46 in Nagarathinam vs. S.Jaya, wherein this Court has followed the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and taking note of escalation in Real Estate, has enhanced the sale consideration, land owner cannot be called upon to sell the property for the price agreed in the year 1994 and has to be suitably benefited by enhancing the sale consideration by exercising the power under Section 100 CPC as stated by the Hon'ble Apex Court accordingly, sale consideration of Rs.1,22,000/- fixed in the sale agreement and hence in the interest of justice, the sale consideration is refixed at Rs.11,22,000/- and accordingly, the balance of sale consideration has to be deposited by the respondent/plaintiff in twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” SLP(C) Nos.8303/2022
4. It appears from the aforesaid that the High Court has directed the original plaintiff to pay Rs.11,22,000/- (Rupees eleven lakh twenty two thousand only) towards the sale consideration and on deposit of the same the appellants herein (original defendants) have been directed to execute the sale deed.
5. We also take notice of the fact that the trial court dismissed the suit(s) on the ground that the plaintiff was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. However, the first appellate court and the High Court held in favour of the original plaintiff.
6. The fact remains that the sale agreement is of the year 1994.
Almost 30 years have elapsed. In the year 2008, the original owner sold it to appellant who has filed the connected appeal (ie.civil appeal no...@ SLP(C)NO.8831/2022)
7. We are of the view that before we hear the matter finally the parties should once sit together and try to arrive at some amicable settlement.
8. Prima-facie, we are of the view that the appellants herein should be asked to pay a reasonable amount to the plaintiff by way of liquidated damages.
9. Post it for final hearing in February, 2025.
(CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)