delay in filing the suit for specific performance Suit against the original defendant viz. P. Paramasiva Gounder for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 06.07.1990 and to deliver possession or in the alternative to direct the original defendant - P. Paramasiva Gounder to pay a sum of Rs.2,47,478/- (Rupees two lakhs forty seven thousand and four hundred seventy eight) to the appellant and respondent nos. 6 to 8.= High court reversed the decree and judgment of trial court and that of appellant court in second appeal= The High Court further observed that if there was a lessee, there would have been a reference of the said lessee even in the original agreement of sale and, therefore, on that ground the High Court did not accept the Exhibit A-11 endorsement as a ground for the appellant in delay in filing the suit for specific performance. The High Court held that the appellant and respondent nos. 6 to 8 having paid 90% of the amount under the agreement of sale would not have waited for six years in filing the suit for specific performance. Apex court held that Since the agreement is of the year 1990 and keeping in view the escalated price of the land and other facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct respondent nos. 1 to 5 to pay a sum of Rs.17,50,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs fifty thousand) which is inclusive of the advance amount of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees one lakh forty thousand) to the appellant and respondent nos. 6 to 8. On deposit of the amount of Rs.17,50,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs fifty thousand), the said sale deed dated 02.03.2007 shall stand cancelled and respondents no. 1 to 5 are at liberty to register the decree and appropriate entry be made in the Registrar office in the Encumbrance Register reversing the entry of sale and also in the Revenue Register to enable respondent nos. 1 to 5 to have clear title.

1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
     CIVIL APPEAL NO.  11380 OF 2011
L.T.SOMASUNDARAM                                   ...APPELLANT(S)
                                VERSUS
P.SAMPOORNAM AND ORS    ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. The   appellant   and   the   proforma   respondent   nos.   6   to   8   have
filed   the   suit   against   the   original   defendant   viz.   P.   Paramasiva
Gounder   for   specific   performance   of   agreement   of   sale   dated
06.07.1990   and   to   deliver   possession   or   in   the   alternative   to
direct the original defendant -  P. Paramasiva Gounder to pay a sum
of   Rs.2,47,478/-   (Rupees   two   lakhs   forty   seven   thousand   and   four
hundred seventy eight) to the appellant and respondent nos. 6 to 8.
2. Based   upon   the   evidence   adduced   by   the   parties,   the   Trial
Court   held   that   the   appellant   and   respondent   nos.   6   to   8   are
entitled   to   the   decree   for   specific   performance   and,   accordingly,
decreed   the   suit   vide   judgment   dated   16.10.2003.   During   the
pendency of the suit, the original defendant- P. Paramasiva Gounder
died.   Respondent   Nos.   1   to   5   were   brought   on   record   as   the   Legal
representatives   of   deceased-   P.   Paramasiva   Gounder.   The   respondent
nos.   1   to   5   preferred   the   first   appeal   and   the   same   came   to   be
dismissed on 02.09.2005.
3. Being   aggrieved,   the   respondent   nos.   1   to   5   preferred   the

2
second   appeal   and   the   High   Court   reversed   the   concurrent   findings
and   allowed   the   second   appeal.   In   the   impugned   judgment,   the   High
Court   held   that   the   price   agreed   under   the   agreement   of   sale   was
Rs.1,50,000/-   (Rupees   one   lakh   fifty   thousand)   and   the   appellant
and   respondent   nos.   6   to   8   herein   had   paid   Rs.1,40,000/-   (Rupees
one   lakh   forty   thousand)   and   the   balance   payable   was   only
Rs.10,000/-   (Rupees   ten   thousand)   and   it   is   not   known   why   the
appellant   and   respondent   nos.   6   to   8   kept   quit   for   such   long   time
without   then   and   there   seeking   for   the   specific   performance.
Insofar as the alleged endorsement, Exhibit A-11 about the eviction
of   lessee   in   the   suit   property,   the   High   Court   did   not   accept   the
endorsement and held that Exhibit A-11 endorsement does not specify
a   particular   time   within   which   the   lessee   shall   be   evicted.   The
High Court further observed that if there was a lessee, there would
have   been   a   reference   of   the   said   lessee   even   in   the   original
agreement of sale and, therefore, on that ground the High Court did
not   accept   the   Exhibit   A-11   endorsement   as   a   ground   for   the
appellant in delay in filing the suit for specific performance. The
High   Court   held   that   the   appellant   and   respondent   nos.   6   to   8
having paid 90% of the amount under the agreement of sale would not
have   waited   for   six   years   in   filing   the   suit   for   specific
performance.   On   those   findings,   the   High   Court   reversed   the
concurrent   findings   of   the   Courts   below   and   allowed   the   second
appeal.
4. We   have   heard   Mr.   Senthil   Jagadeesan,   learned   counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant and respondent nos. 6 to 8 as
well   as   Mr.   Jayanth   Muth   Raj,   learned   senior   counsel   appearing   on

3
behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5 and perused the relevant material.
5. The relief  of specific  performance is  a discretionary  one. In
the   present   case,   the   agreement   of   sale   was   executed   way   back   in
the   year   1990.   Learned   senior   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
respondent   nos.   1   to   5   has   submitted   that   the   respondents   are   in
possession   of   the   property   and   over   the   years   they   spent   lot   of
money in developing the property and at this distant point of time
if   the   suit   for   specific   performance   is   to   be   decreed,   it   will
cause   undue   hardship   to   respondent   nos.   1   to   5   and,   therefore,
submitted that the judgment of the High Court may not be interfered
with.     We   find   force   in   the   submission   of   the   learned   senior
counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   respondent   nos.   1   to   5.   Since   the
agreement is of the year 1990 it would cause undue hardship to the
respondents if at this distant point of time, respondents nos. 1 to
5 are directed to execute sale deed in favour of the appellant and
respondent   nos.   6   to   8   at   the   price   which   was   agreed   in   the   year
1990.
6. However,   when   the   High   Court   reversed   the   concurrent   findings
of   the   lower   Courts,   the   High   Court   should   have   considered   the
alternative   prayer   of   the   appellant   and   respondent   nos.   6   to   8   in
ordering refund of the advance payment of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees one
lakh   forty   thousand).   Since   the   agreement   is   of   the   year   1990   and
keeping in view the escalated price of the land and other facts and
circumstances   of   the   case,   we   deem   it   appropriate   to   direct
respondent   nos.   1   to   5   to   pay   a   sum   of   Rs.17,50,000/-   (Rupees
seventeen   lakhs   fifty   thousand)   which   is   inclusive   of   the   advance
amount   of   Rs.1,40,000/-   (Rupees   one   lakh   forty   thousand)   to   the

4
appellant   and   respondent   nos.   6   to   8.   The   respondent   nos.   1   to   5
shall   deposit   the   amount   of   Rs.17,50,000/-(Rupees   seventeen   lakhs
fifty   thousand)   to   the   credit   of   the   Court   of   Additional
Subordinate Court-II, Erode, Erode District within a period of four
months from today. The Supreme Court Registry is directed to draft
a decree to this effect. On such deposit being made, the amount of
Rs.17,50,000/-(Rupees   seventeen   lakhs   fifty   thousand)   shall   be
equally apportioned amongst the appellant and Respondent nos. 6 to
8.
7.   It   is   stated   that   after   the   dismissal   of   the   appeal   by   the
First Appellate Court, sale deed was executed by the proceedings of
the   Executing   Court   on   02.03.2007   in   favour   of   the   appellant   and
respondent nos. 6 to 8. On deposit of the amount of Rs.17,50,000/-
(Rupees   seventeen   lakhs   fifty   thousand),   the   said   sale   deed   dated
02.03.2007 shall stand cancelled and respondents no. 1 to 5 are at
liberty to register the decree and appropriate entry be made in the
Registrar office in the Encumbrance Register reversing the entry of
sale   and   also   in   the   Revenue   Register   to   enable   respondent   nos.   1
to 5 to have clear title.
8. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
........................J.
[R.BANUMATHI]
NEW DELHI ........................J.
25TH JULY, 2019 [ A.S. BOPANNA]

5
ITEM NO.101               COURT NO.7               SECTION XII
               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal  No(s).  11380/2011
L.T.SOMASUNDARAM                                   Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
P.SAMPOORNAM AND ORS                            Respondent(s)

Date : 25-07-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
         HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
For Appellant(s) Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, AOR
Ms. Sonakshi Malhan,Adv.
Ms. Suriti Chowdhary,Adv.
Ms. Mrinal Kanwar,Adv.
                 
For Respondent(s) Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj,Sr.Adv.
Mr. C.K.Sasi,Adv.
Mrs. Malavika Jayanth,Adv.
Mr. Sureshan P., AOR
                   
          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any , shall stand disposed of.
(MADHU BALA)                                    (NISHA TRIPATHI)
COURT MASTER (SH)                                BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file)