Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.27 seconds)Saradamani Kandappan vs S. Rajalakshmi & Ors on 4 July, 2011
In Saradamani Kandappan v. S. Rajalakshmi, the Supreme
Court had noticed that the principle of time not being the essence
of the contract in relation to immovable property is not inflexible,
owing to the changes in the economy and the increase in prices.
The observations of the Supreme Court are apt in the context of
the present case and are set out herein below:
G.T. Girish vs Y Subba Raju (D) By Lrs on 18 January, 2022
(d) The defendant proved that she served first legal notice on
13.07.1998 Ex.P23, which was duly received by GPA-father of the
plaintiff, in which it was stated that the defendant has got NOC
from the Estate Office, Chandigarh on 21.04.19998, but the
plaintiff failed to sign Form No.37-I. Therefore, the plaintiff was
given one week time to do the needful for getting the agreement to
sell completed, failing which the same will be cancelled. In cross-
examination, PW3 Harmail Singh Bains, GPA-father of the
plaintiff admitted having received this notice. Another notice
38 of 42
::: Downloaded on - 26-08-2022 08:51:08 :::
RSA-1499 & 4500-2013 -39-
Ex.P24 was served upon the plaintiff on 27.07.1998 through DW2
Ravinder Krishan, Advocate, vide which the agreement to sell was
cancelled, as the plaintiff failed to perform his part of the contract,
as noticed above. Prior to filing of the present suit, which was
instituted on 30.07.1998, the defendant cancelled the agreement to
sell, therefore, in view of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in I.S. Sikandar's case (supra), G.T. Girish's case (supra),
Mohinder Kaur's case (supra) and Kalawati (D) through LRs's
case (supra), the suit for possession by way of specific
performance of agreement to sell was not maintainable, as the
plaintiff never sought a declaration that cancellation of agreement
to sell be also set aside. Accordingly, question of law No.5 is also
answered in favour of the appellant-defendant.
Dulal Chand Nandi Decd Thr Lrs vs Kiran Bala Mehru & Anr on 30 July, 2018
It is further submitted that at the time of agreement to sell, only
10% of the earnest money was paid by the plaintiff i.e. Rs.14.00 lacs as against
the total sale consideration of Rs.1.25 crore, therefore, the lower appellate Court
erred in granting decree of specific performance. Learned senior counsel has
relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Dulal Chand Nandi
(deceased) through LRs Vs. Kiran Bala Mehru and another, 2018 SCC
OnLine Del 10259, in which, while considering the case, where 10% of the
total sale consideration was given, it was observed that granting a decree of
specific performance at a belated stage will become a cruel joke and will result
in injustice and declined the grant of a decree of specific performance. The
25 of 42
::: Downloaded on - 26-08-2022 08:51:08 :::
RSA-1499 & 4500-2013 -26-
operative part of the judgment reads as under: -
Nanjappan vs Ramasamy & Anr on 24 February, 2015
(c) While exercising its discretion under Section 20 of Specific Relief,
Act, the trial Court granted the alternative relief of refund of
double of the earnest money. It is case of the parties that price of
the property has gone high manifold during the intervening period
and the lower appellate Court failed to appreciate that it is
discretion of the trial Court to grant/or not specific performance
under Section 20 of Specific Relief Act and once the trial Court
exercised its discretion in favour of the defendant, the lower
appellate Court, while passing the impugned judgment and decree,
37 of 42
::: Downloaded on - 26-08-2022 08:51:08 :::
RSA-1499 & 4500-2013 -38-
did not make out any special circumstance as to why the same is
being reversed. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Nanjappan's case (supra) and Jayakantham's
case (supra), as in both cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
declined to grant relief of specific performance, considering that
the Courts, on its discretion, can order refund of the amount plus
some additional amount to balance the equity. It is also held that
the Court can see the circumstances of the case and conduct of the
parties as well as the fact that value of the property has increased
very fast in the urban areas. Accordingly, it is held that the lower
appellate Court has wrongly reversed the well reasoned findings
recorded by the trial Court, who declined relief of specific
performance, while exercising the discretion under Section 20 of
the Specific Relief Act and questions of law No.3 & 4 are
answered in favour of the appellant-defendant.
Sardar Singh vs Krishna Devi on 26 April, 1994
In Sardar Singh vs. Smt. Krishna Devi & Anr., (1994) 4 SCC
18, this Court observed that as the court has to see the totality of
the circumstances, conduct of the parties and respective interests
under the contract while granting/refusing such relief."
Jayakantham And Ors vs Abaykumar on 21 February, 2017
Learned senior counsel has also relied upon judgment in
Jayakantham and others Vs. Abaykumar, 2017 (2) RCR (Civil) 104, to
submit that it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while granting or
declining the relief of specific performance, the Court is to consider facts and
29 of 42
::: Downloaded on - 26-08-2022 08:51:08 :::
RSA-1499 & 4500-2013 -30-
circumstances of a case and the circumstances given in Section 20 of Specific
Relief Act are only illustrative and not exhaustive and non-performance of an
agreement, if causes no hardship to the plaintiff, it is discretion of the Court to
order refund plus some additional amount to balance the equity. In this
judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the fact that
agreement to sell related to the year 1999, declined the prayer for grant of a
decree of specific performance of agreement and Rs.50.00 lacs in lieu of
specific performance was granted.
Bachhaj Nahar vs Nilima Mandal & Ors on 23 September, 2008
(e) On re-appreciating of the pleadings and evidence on record,
conduct of the plaintiff apparently reflects that he was not ready
and willing to perform his part of the contract, as same was
delayed, therefore, in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Bachhaj Nahar's case (supra), the trial Court rightly
exercised its discretion to refund double of the earnest money
along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the
suit i.e. 30.07.1998 till the date of actual payment.
Narinderjit Singh vs North Star Estate Promoters Ltd on 8 May, 2012
(f) Though there is no dispute with regard to judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinderjit Singh's case (supra) and
Ramathal's case (supra), relied upon by learned senior counsel for
39 of 42
::: Downloaded on - 26-08-2022 08:51:08 :::
RSA-1499 & 4500-2013 -40-
the respondent-plaintiff, however, on facts, the same are
distinguishable, as in both these cases, it was the seller, who failed
to execute the sale deed due to his own fault, therefore, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere escalation of price cannot
be a ground for denying the relief of specific performance. In the
instant case, it is the plaintiff-purchaser, who failed to get the terms
and conditions of the agreement to sell completed, despite the time
being essence of the contract and rather failed to sign Form No.37-
I for seeking clearance certificate from the Income Tax
Department, despite the notice Ex.P23 was issued by the
defendant, which was followed by another notice of cancellation of
agreement to sell Ex.P24.
Ramathal vs Maruthathal . on 22 August, 2017
(f) Though there is no dispute with regard to judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinderjit Singh's case (supra) and
Ramathal's case (supra), relied upon by learned senior counsel for
39 of 42
::: Downloaded on - 26-08-2022 08:51:08 :::
RSA-1499 & 4500-2013 -40-
the respondent-plaintiff, however, on facts, the same are
distinguishable, as in both these cases, it was the seller, who failed
to execute the sale deed due to his own fault, therefore, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that mere escalation of price cannot
be a ground for denying the relief of specific performance. In the
instant case, it is the plaintiff-purchaser, who failed to get the terms
and conditions of the agreement to sell completed, despite the time
being essence of the contract and rather failed to sign Form No.37-
I for seeking clearance certificate from the Income Tax
Department, despite the notice Ex.P23 was issued by the
defendant, which was followed by another notice of cancellation of
agreement to sell Ex.P24.