Karnataka High Court
S Jahanara vs C Nazeer Ahamed on 14 March, 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNAT AKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 13th day of JULY,
BEFORE " k
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE 4_
C.R.P.No. 17,30/2053 ~ 1 > '
Between:
. ._._ ,
S-Jabmzara
W/o.S.Abid,
(£5,-, Aged about 49 yrs._, _
Rep. by her P:A.Hoider _ __
And husband Sri.S.Abi.d,
S,1e.1ateA.Kh_a1ir.;, » '
Aged about E~9V3_r'rs.,{ 1.
. e
Chi1(311aga1u"r., . _ '
.. Petitioner
[By st-1%.-1; "A@1'v.: gm. _)
.....
A ,'C.'}J§§2»§¢r"A'hamed, V. X SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.Rs. 1(a) Nadeem, 1(b} ._E€avoof', AA *1-{9} Aslam, Naseer, all are majors, ' 311 are sons of' late C.Nazeer Ahmed, R/0. Rathna@'ri Road, ' fmnnfl Ifu-r-u-'nu'Pn1rn 13¢-I'11r\ 'J.'\Ja.l. .l\.C2.l11Cl.l..a.!xa. :3.'-.-w«-ewyi'. ,. ' Chiekmagalur.
\)--' F x
-.._r Ashraf U1L]_isa, , W/0. Khadar Sharif, {Lorry Driver-3., aged about 49 yrs., N0. 4593, Behind M1_n:t_11 Mar .A_. _ ;£_ia__ Gulf Colony, 1- 1'- _ _ __ nafisall.
1{f) Parveen Ta}, W/(.1, Syed Imam ' Aged a130_1_1t 4?_j?'rs., V V Near Baiaji Shimoga Road," vv Vidyanagar. j " . _ Darwarigere--Dist;_~.,,__" ' ' ' 1(g) ---- ~Ha_s"eeI1'a1 Banal, W/0-X' MohaImncd.Farcf»0q Jan, {Auto D11?'-3r};»V, ._ " _ aged, abeut "
ind-iiravfiandhi Road, "
{£1} N N27 _ "v..w,{0.K1:adar Pasha, aged» 33 yrs., merchant, .-.fA1;j'i1111a11 street, E1.-ate Agha Comps" 5' "'Chickmaga1uI. mm"
.. Respondents Ink: 911-? Q nnnntrnrni ('YD I1. .,¢'.'.Q{I!I'I" sirld Gzanegh Rba Qf IJJJ I-IJ.J.ulJ-.lJIJ-3-1'14'!-I-I-|'-II-" - n u 1- v ---- - ,- Vijay Shankar Associates for res I1 cntsf)"
L0 'The C";.Iv:'.P. is flied 11.3. 115 of CPC agair1St,Or(ier cit. 3-3-2003 passed on I.A.No. XXVIII in OS Ne;76/__1Q35V.on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Chiclrlnagaiiil' a1l:0*.&5'in_.g'--I.A.' No. XX'./III filed 11.3. 28{l} of Specific Relief Act,'1.9é--3, for reeciteien of the contract (it. 3-12-1982" and for settir1g'j;.a;s1idee«the judgment and decree (it. 22-1"22_-19}.':'!C!.fj. " ' f . a This C.R.P COII1iI1g.»()I1_.f0r'Vi'1Ih':i3 imatter having been reserved for "~o,rz1.ers,__ t;.--.,i--s", t't~day, the "(.','-ourt pronounced the following: ' ' The f1'finj_- g instant ear. had chaflehged passed by the Court of Civil 'Judge ._ (henceforth referred to for convenience 'a1 _ Court), on I.A.No. 28 in Q}..S.""'e.76 1.6 1133 I_I.l£\.I.\.d. 1.1.1. \..| J.\.\Jl..l.\.).l .l.I.\lla' 196.3.
'» n An 1:) he ' ' 1+ _«.. .4;-erere me 131" fuuher, I set here W1-ow ..he releve.11. AA TfacteV__of the case :
The ]>eti'EI'°?1&T -- plaintifi' had filed orignang} a suit in E O.S.NO.76/ 1985 for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 3.12.1982 and further permitted the petitioner --- / Zs='-3'i'»*'liL'J_'.'1t;f:'- ='. - ' ' . . -' 45 failure of the petitioner - plaintifi to do so the trial Court shall execute the sale deed in respect of suit property in the :3 R f the he ifinner -- rm °nHfi' 1-"|"'.'i:':..1""fi!=.-.'T'~-..1" n #5 pr _. ...-., - ..., .. ....., r.,.....-..-..... £,-......,-.,,.». H........,. ....-.., t..............iu. pia1'nti1"f had executed an ag1'eement"of'tsa1e to sefis suit schedule property for sale consideration.'of -i
3. 'T' e ma' '1 Court, "'on'-r.contest,V 'edeereedwdwthe suit 01" the petitioner -- e'p'laintifl' with {of Rs.34;528/- and further directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.2,5Q;U"{::Qj--. the: ba1ance1:_"of___t1°1e sale consideration on or ;;iiaintii"f7i1ad:"§.i'fled'series. gs I.As., i.e.: LA. (15.25 to 27 before the trial extension of time to deposit the above 5 sale consideration. Finally, the petitioner filed I.A.No.29 seeking extension of time_, nr\r\rI('t3'l's"' _ l"t1'PJ=I1"'Il"-'2|1'1'i' nnnnnafl fhn errirl T urn'! u L \J uuuu. u ucu.u. 1.1 u.13.u I.-J-J. In flgrtherdfiled a separate LA. numbered as I.A.No.'.?.8 before the Court. The said LA. was filed by the respondent ~ defendant under Section 28(1) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 praying for setting aside the judgnent and decree passed (' Ifl-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------r eariier on 22.2.1990 and also to dismiss the saidflsfiit of the 4- /_ v r4rrw% ha-nw'~ 0+» V V V 2 *' \iE';1e petifioner ---- plaintiff or .tl1e":;respondent -
95'//defendant. In doing A' («loiirféhacl allowed. I.A.No.28 of the I'espondeot -» 'f¢1efe'1£3aai*t;~ar4rd fmther dismismd . - -1 u -q ' - V n 0 4 0 .
(Qourt ha" tege-:_t J3. --..r§,,d,Vby tue petztloner --- p..h".1":t1fi',,
5. Having. by the said common order um;
passed by L ..1_:.11-1*, 'rrial 'Carri, "1'--'i1i,I__1_g.vthe instant Csivfi 'Revision Petition to 'oha11enge~o1:hev said common order in so far as the same is 2 A defendant.
5;. ' hp £1111-ruad 001111361 in-r i'1"1n v1.4:ui--=1'-:t\-r1c1r-, D r'.'.r\1-uni 'Fun:-I '\lo 2' .|..l..l.|.J J.ucu11.u 2' " -«taken me through the facts of the case set out as above. He i'1._1r_t.her tried. to draw an a_n_a1_og_y between pr_vi._i 11 in . 11. e _,,_ J4," , I U 4. The trial Court, on hearhag' argumehts of---boxflu fhex "' TGVMVI1 0K_0Lfl10\ 'V '_ ' H .. A .4 n - .| 1.: -'LP ' ' 1/da mm e'5.dn5Ldr- . - V' -- T' ' s1_e.m on ments, ha... paosegga e..nJ.__r11on, order A..1".-ft. A.No_._'.'jf_3 of, provision in Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and I V. S". Jepal had furtuer t=W'"-"*1 that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is opposed to the same is iiable to be set _asid.CA it According to him, the have filed a regular appeal as the r1l\'Ix'I"'+ Hana l'I'I'I!1 Q11-:+ 'Viri- \../KILLI. L J. '-.l\.ii.'., Cl.Ll.'..l. U I' . ' 73 -11 5
7. To app_reeiate..tlie-said 'of Sri. R. Go"; all, I have to refer to'._thes'sprjo'y1s1"f_1 "1 Cl7"use'{"} "f See. 35 of m" Spcer ' Relief Act,ie1377ddem'tiaceas had and Sec. 23(1) of Special ReliefA.et;'i1£?6_3i4oi1«tlie_QthBr. See. 3x5-4of"s'5per:iai,_l?elief Act, 1877 reads as follows :
"35;v'---when rescission may be adjudged ? - _ i'--';i*;«j-3 person intemsted is a contract in 'vv'ri%g "sue to have it rescinded, and such .
Ieseission may be adjudged by the Court in any the following cases, namely :
" I.-.\ ....... .. .......~ .1... .2... ..-..: "L1,. ..... . 1.. ~' "V-IVTEICIC the U £11-'.1"' 125 VU1l'i IJJU U1 t 1 L11 bl I I by the plamtiif;
{b} where the contract is unlawful for causes apparent on its face and the defendant is more to blame than the 'plamtiif; ' NO'i'E.-- Corresponds to See. 27[1)(a) and (b) of the new Act; _ ~.1 (C ) where a decree for specific perfoI'mano_e"»of a contract of saic, or of a contract to take' "a_i_ea'se, has been made, and the purchaser*'~orVV'.1es;-gees makes default in payment of the' purchase'-v ' rnnnpv n.1'° nfhanr on atria urhir-}1 thfl "~.("1'\'1.1i*§' P1236": _ offered him to pay. ~ NOTE. -- Corresponds When the purchaser oralessee is"i11iposs].ession of the subject :11iatter,""'a:.1_d the Court fmds that such .«ipossessi(:11_ is §=:rongg;fu1,_pt11e Court may also order him to pay the Vendor or lessor the 'r-n'r1'l' ant'! mhtr 1'11)' an .K\.I1J.Ea ..ILl..I.L]. \.l.l..I.»..:QV., JJ. ..l.L:I\/\.':'J.I'\J\aI. I-I)' I..K.LLlJ. C4153 such i possessor, ' V itoR'See§ 23{2_){_a_) of the new In the Court may, by order in the suit in decree has been made and not corxipiied Wjitli, rescind the contract, either so" for as 'regards the party in default, or ' rm!-i-nri;.:.l-1-nsauw .-an -I-3-an ':11:\I":r\ n-P 1-Pan nacsn rnrnxr a.1Lu5\n..l...£\..-.1 , V-':15: |..l..l\2 J uauu uu. l...l.l.\..- vuuu u.1cL_y . V c _ . . . . . .. ' .
I rcqulre.
if - Corresponds to Sec.28{2)(b_) of the new - ' AA Whereas Sec. 28(1) of Special Relief Act, 1963 reads as " --hei'eunder :
"28. Rescission in certain circurostances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has been 'decreed.- (1) Where in any suit a decree 4'... .........,:r:., ........r.........,......_... .4' _. .~..--..-.+.~n..+ rm... +1-'ma, 1U1 b1JCbJ.l1L- PC11UiM1d11bU U1 :1 \.zUiJ.l.l.c1\;L IU1 lJ.1\.« sale or lease of immovable property has -been V' <58.
pp p retpltsite court fee by valuing the appeal based on made and purchaser er lessee does not, within the period allowed by the decree or such'ufu1't11er period as the court may allow, -«jpay-«.V"'the purchase money or other sum which-the__l'ecjur1. has ordered him to pay, the vendor' .or"s-lessor may apply in the same suit in decree 2 is made, to have the contract 133SCi11"ded on such application the; court} may; '=.hy'-tcrcierd, rescind the contract eitherso faras reg.arn:_I's party in default or-altogether, as"the.V_just_Lcet of" ;
1-In '. "JP u.:.€ C356 I333' I"x'i«"xi'u.-.."'=.'_B.
By readingr the ahoiiei side by side, I am nan-I 1- 1-. 1:1 .+1'.'\ +1 4-1» 5 ' '1 ' -rn ' ' ""'"'iV1I'I.\..uu LG. .uG.1u.-ux€uV..' uiCIf» 13' S' bsitgltcfi GT merit In 1.11.
+ CD argun1' ellttof in fact can be drawn as argued ll accept the said part of the argum_entVin.itsV '
3.. _ other': side, the learned counsel for the "respondent, ;.3ri'"ChBasava1aj, supported the impugned order.
that the C.R.P. is not Inaintainable as the cu cl. 1.-|'uI.'.«'l..l. uf pa}u.1 1.1.1 the Court V " paid on the suit before the trial Court.
9. I In support of his arguments he placed reliance on the reported decision of this Court reported in 1960 Mys.L.J. page V 123 the case of NARAYAN GANGADHAR"=DESHPANDE AND OTHERS v. RANGO KRISHNA o1:»<I'I',_m;d case of I Narayan Gangadhar Deshpande -83 others ullir-ishna Dixit, as I see, Court " The true efi'eet of this iprovision is t;h'e1t..t11e Court ' which passed the decree for specific performance, ' is given power to... :1'@:3Ci1o1f_l the.,_cVoi_1_t._1'eI.ct 3.11:1 consequently "set aside decree which it had passed earlier it'. ésueeessfui plairitifi fails to comply with tl1e'termsfof-ti1e*d_ecr~ee. The resulting positieI1.__ is tiieit was once decreed, ca_t1"be'o:1d.-isr11_isseri'"again'ifthe Cou_r1_: is so pleased; 'Ifl'1a1t.eis---v.*-Treat «h.a_s~~.happened in this case. If that is the -ifilie then the plairitiifs, who
-------- appeal 'é1gsir1st'the dismissal of their suit, will have ' to fee on the very basis on which the
--. i'_'.oLrl:f' =.l1-:-it:l.__ been' paid en. the p1ai_n_t= No " .Vaut11ori_ty'--..beai*i1ig"on the point was brought to my iiotiee. -_Bi:t, =1 the View taken by the first ' 'V _ appellate Court is the correct View of the law."
' ~]_0';v.,4:"'TI1_erefore, he prayed that the instant C.R.P. be i A V 'dism-issieri.
A. ,_11.V":I11 reply Sri. Gopal had further argued that "the above decision cited by Sri.Basavaraj in 1960' Mys.L.J. pg. 123 is point of Court fee. He further drew my attention to the reported decision of Delhi High Court reported in ILR 1970 'ct /' Q' _ ' ,....___.....=......--y.¢x According to him, the ftiecision is squarely applicable to the instant case 'facts and circumstances in the said tlie"hlaVwl'appliL5able both the cases, i.e. before news yusexu mus C034» 0A4e".V_a;;1 uh; 2. .'::..u.;' 'rag 1'l'ig.,G.£.I 3 Court had occasion to deai,.VSec.2'8'iA1}wA"of the Specific ' Relief Act._ He had to para (5) of the said judgment relied':-upon byV',.hirn"'afhereirl the Court had held as hereunder V " l l V V LLILI of section 28 of the Spccificrkelief __ 1963; provides that where in any suit 'aAV_t'dec1jee,Vi'}ar specific performance of a co:1V_tract" for; sale or lease of immovable _ V proper_1.y~ .I1as'*_been made and the purchaser or 're see does riot, within the peficd allowed by the agdec-rjee or such further period as the Court may VV _ a1low;«. pay the purchase money or other sum .VV"w_hich_ the court has ordered him to pay, the . Vveiidorlor lessor may apply in the same suit in Whitiih the decree is made, to have the contract V "rescirided and on such application the court ' .V_may, by order, rescind the contract either so far as regards the party in default or altogether as the justice of the case may require. It is, leer that the appliafinfi For mscission KJCLI IJIIZL t.l'.J. I.n.l\Jl-A 1&1 «gs; ssetsaerr we therefore, c is to be made in the suit in which the decree was made and the adjudication by the on the ' application is described as an "order"." f 44:.' aa..x:-auum-,-.,..... ' .._ __. ........_ ,-..-.._~..--1m~:u-- ai...
' --v._,'l'herefore, Sri. Gopal prayed that the instant C.R.P. be 11
12. To buttress his argument, he had plaoe§l:':"1-gliance on TQRH vs: I -1 103 "Eh "1".» ..I»:.s"n':;. "r~ QP nf J: -'\l'--' 111.] 'J! J-4"\l' '.I.I..I. '.nJ.J.'r/ W¢_J'l£.I.\'V4".' \4'.L\--7'.l Narayan Gangadhar Deshpandejis others' Krishna Dixit, wherein this Court had heldas jhereiinderflf-e it " The true effect of ~'«:his_V provision is-*that-the * which passed the decTee.for speci1'ic'.=pe:i'oImance, is given power to the contiract and consequently, aside' the' "decree which it had"
passed e"'ea1'lier"-ii" the sticcessfial plaintifi fails te comply with the terms of the The resulting position'-is that"a- .S!lll.;.'.l"wIfiCh..'W'aS once decreed, can be disinissed is so pleased.
T _ t is e%,l_1at'has happened in this case. If that is the tr.ue,. pegged .aW,"».'ahen the plaintifl's, whe _ of their suit, will have to pay, .fee_ on the very basis on which the Ceurt 'fee-» _had»._bee11' paid on the plaint. No 'autho1'ity bea1"i11g"on the point was brought to my rid-istie-e.. But. 'i'.thinl{ the View i9J{CI'l by the first
- . pappellateVCoti:r.t is the correct View of the law."
" aside the impugned order passed by the V' Now let me set out the provision in Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The said provision reads thus:
"28.Rescission in certain circumstances of contracts for the sale or lease of immovable property, the specific performance of which has V,» f /"' i--J IQ
-
been decreed.- (1) Where in any suit a decree for performance of a eontraet for the or lease of immovable property has been macleand purchaser or lessee does not, within the "
allowed by the decree or sLIoh fm"t_her"'pe1_~*lod the court may allow, pay the purchase gneneyaer '' Othfif which the Court has to V. pay, the vendor or lessorttiay .ap.p1y,i_11 "V the ' same suit in which the decree is-~~n;|ade, to'- have the contract rescinded an o1i:__ such court may, by order,*res_cind the contra(;t..either so, V * far as regards the paI't3r,i'11. default or altogether, as the justice of the case require." _ "
15. On a simple reaoihgl it is clear that no maf:ter£.tl1at::'suf;t earlier decreed, 011 sa 5 'set aside de.._ es ..ud fu. ,.h__.r eoi1"" ' 'L' ""
28( 1) the tfielietgflsct are satisfied. Now the "question is Whether the suit decreed earlier in ' jaw to be so when impugned order on I.A.No.Q8 lpassed by the trial Court.
x 17. ll the fact situation of the case in hand, in my ll eerisidered view, that was not the position at all for the
-- following reasons:
1? .
Z If,"
L-/' 13 (1) The decree in the suit that was originally granted by the trial Court came to be chailenged Court by the respondent - defendant hi 1 1991s and n.-. no 7 nnnn +t.:.. r'm.e.+ .u.§.'--.._:e:.;....«.r11' +1}..'. 1:: 4:1..:.4 1."
Kill -£'(.J--f""~a'\.J'.' 1.1113 K./\'L1.liL \J.1_3.I.IJ.Vli3n?\.J\.1 um! 11.l\.r\-1.' Uy the respondent - def_endaI1tend 'confirm: ing the decree passed trial (2) That therefore nioedecree the eye of law the trial court in the suit of the ..+:.i'.'.-'....";,.§ __V. .;i1_.;'£...+:3:c ;cn;.,.....=......~J.. +1.". .....=...+:,... mo ._ 11:51.. _ .p5,_a.u1L1_.I:..~. 31;: aux.-11. L11 quc u 1 U1 '_ iiied by the respondent -
eefeeezantto {the same before the trial Court did A nottrarise at all."--- 4' V have considered the arguments and counter i Vi advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the it at , On a careful reading of the provision in Section 28(1) of 'tithe epeci . Rei .f A .t' 1963 and further analyzing the same ..........-____3 7* conclusion that the trial Court had erroneously allowed I.A.No.28 thinking that the decree it had ganted earlier was . 2 / 1/ .. D 51K.
very much existing, whereas it was not with the dismissal of the R.F.A. filed by the respondent --- defendaidtjas. stated in para (19) supra and para' (20) here be1ovy;"aiid'.'s.ae1e is of contract of the petitionerithe to be decreed against the respondem"-_'V despite that, the petitioner the balance of the sale consideratiefl trial Court but instead of dG"T"'i V'-=+""t evtefisien of time_b'y i'1liI1" turee I.As."?.-- 'LA.VNoV successively without pursuing the relief of ef exteiision of time to deposit the balance of _ "H A ieonsideratioiiof Rs.3,50,000/-.
-t '-- respondent -- defendant in the meantime had the decree granted by the trial Court before this 'Court in R.F.A.454_/1991 and this Court dismissed the said .....--.. ..--.+ If 4.1-... 4...: 1 T3 , 1' L11 L1 10.!-
A .!'1.
Court decreeing the suit of the petitioner 4 p1aintifi'; as such in my considered view, there was no decree in the suit for the K /"' 5/ ta ;gl 3 15
-1-_ _ ,1 , respo" ca it -- d 1 aant to recourse te i.A.i'o.4 oeior trial Court since decree in suit had merged with in R.F'.A. referred to above under Sec. 28(1) of Act, 1963, as if the decree passed ifriifav'eLir'..ef 41'. p-_i.n..._ff was not stibsisting and l "q_1e._*_ien' of respondents -- defendants to recopfirse-to Secz. of bpeoinc Relief Act before the trieigceurt sepia gee: arise' at all. That being so, in my further considered trial Court did not get the to; e.ii_n:pug11ed order under l.A.No.f::'3. irrewtiiat eeeeef the inatter, the triai Court had committed etror.Viri..1iaW~._ji1«.passing the impugned order in allowiirg. _I.Aa.u'No:i '~28 lofstlie respondents - defendants. :'V:.V_V.T116I'éf4;I'é~;'l isflliable to be set aside.
22." said reasons, I am of the View that the _ 'inipugriedaorder passed by the trial Court cannot sustain in ("F Iirrned hr 511' nsuaqprl 1? hp ' 1 ("'.n11'r' U. .. ... 'Ll \_l\.rI_l.l LIL! J an; 1...n.u.a.1 liable to be set aside; aecorciingiy the same is hereby set _ "aside in allowing the instant revision petition; in the process, A 16 I.A.No.28 filed by the respondents --- defcndants.T""3tands rejected. ' V V'
23. In the result, the instant C._R.P_._ is In peculiar facts of the instant case, there fie Order as' E 1
-5 § " k in . . ..
ii I .1 ..