Supreme Court - Daily Orders
C P Sanjeevi Mudaliar vs K Narasiman Deceased Through Lr on 27 January, 2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No.33451/2018)
C P SANJEEVI MUDALIAR ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
K NARASIMAN DECEASED THROUGH LR. ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in SA No. 253/2005, the plaintiff in O.S. No.75/1995 has preferred this appeal.
Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant had filed O.S. No.75/1995 seeking specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 29.10.1993. It is the case of the original plaintiff (since deceased) that the plaint scheduled property was sought to be sold to the plaintiff by the original defendant for a sum of Rs.2,49,000/- and that a sum of Rs.5,000/- was paid as an advance sale consideration to the defendant(s); that since there was no execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the Agreement to Sell in O.S. Signature Not Verified No.75/1995 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Digitally signed by NEETU SACHDEVA Date: 2025.01.30 16:52:27 IST Reason: Ranipettai. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 21.03.2002.
contd..
- 2 -
Being aggrieved, the original defendant filed A.S.No. 35 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Court, Vellore, which was also dismissed by judgment and decree dated 11.02.2003. Therefore, the original defendant preferred S.A. No.253/2005. At this stage, it may be mentioned that during the pendency of the second appeal, the original defendant died and Arulmigu Lakshmi Narashima Swamy Thirukoil represented by the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer Sholinghur filed an application seeking setting aside of the abatement of the second appeal and to come on record by stepping into the shoes of the original defendant. The said application(s) was allowed and S.A. No. 253/2005 which had stood abated was restored on the file of the High Court.
It is also brought to our notice that subsequent to the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the judgment and decree of the Trial Court as sustained by the First Appellate Court was executed and the Sale Deed was registered on 10.08.2004 in the name of the original plaintiff.
In the second appeal, the High Court formulated the following substantial question of law at the time of admission of the second appeal -
“When admittedly the documents itself provided for liquidated damages for breach of contract whether the Courts below are right in granting equitable right of specific performance?” contd..
- 3 -
The High Court held that the suit for specific performance filed by the appellant/plaintiff was maintainable inspite of the clause in the Agreement to sell dated 29.10.1993. While answering that in favour of the appellant/plaintiff, the High Court ought to have accordingly dismissed the same. However, in the absence of formulating any other substantial question of law, the High Court proceeded to consider the judgment and decree of Trial Court as sustained by the First Appellate Court on merits and allowed the second appeal while dismissing the suit and consequently setting aside the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court. Hence, this appeal.
We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
The controversy in this appeal in a very narrow compass. It is noted that the High Court had formulated only one substantial question of law, referred to above. The said substantial question of law was also answered in favour of the appellant herein. If that was so, the High Court could have proceeded to dismiss the second appeal. Instead, even in the absence of any other substantial question of law raised by it, the High Court proceeded to consider the case of the parties on merits and allowed the second appeal and consequently dismissed the suit filed by the appellant herein.
contd..
- 4 -
We find that the approach of the High Court in the instant case has not been just and proper. On that short ground alone, the impugned judgment passed the High Court is set aside. The matter is remanded to the High Court to re-consider the Second Appeal filed by the original defendant now by the substituted party / Arulmigu Lakshmi Narashima Swamy Thirukoil represented by the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Officer Sholinghur. The High Court shall re-determine the substantial question(s) of law, if any, that may arise in the second appeal and dispose of the second appeal in accordance with law.
Since, we have not made any observation on the merits of the case, all contentions on both sides are left open to be advanced before the High Court Since the suit is of the year 1995, the High Court shall endeavour to dispose of the second appeal as expeditiously as possible obviously with the co- operation of all concerned.
This appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
…………………………………………………………J. [B.V. NAGARATHNA] …………………………………………………………J. [SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA] NEW DELHI JANUARY 27, 2025 ITEM NO.39 COURT NO.8 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(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 33451/2018 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 03-08-2018 in SA No. 253/2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras] C P SANJEEVI MUDALIAR Petitioner(s) VERSUS K NARASIMAN DECEASED THROUGH LR. Respondent(s) IA No. 173909/2024 - APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPLICATION FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ABATEMENT IA No. 173913/2024 - APPLICATION FOR SUBSTITUTION IA No. 173917/2024 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. IA No. 174/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES IA No. 173911/2024 - SETTING ASIDE AN ABATEMENT Date : 27-01-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA For Petitioner(s) :Mrs. V Mohana, Sr. Adv.
Mr. B. Ragunath, Adv.
Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR Mrs. NV Kavitha, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. S. Hariharan, Adv.
Mr. K.M.Kalidharun, Adv.
Mr. Vikash Singh, AOR Mr. V. Balaji, Adv.
Mr. Asaithambi Msm, Adv.
Mr. B. Dhananjay, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appellant herein is since deceased. The applications for substitution of his legal representative, condonation Of delay in filing application for setting aside the contd..
- 2 -
abatement and setting aside of abatement have been filed.
We have heard learned senior counsel for the applicant(s) and learned counsel for the respondent(s) There being no objection to the said applications, the same are allowed and the legal representatives of the deceased appellant are brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased appellant only for the purpose of defending the judgment and decree of the Trial Court as sustained by the First Appellate Court.
Appellant’s counsel to file amended Memo of Parties. This appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
(NEETU SACHDEVA) (DIVYA BABBAR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)