When appeal was dismissed on merits and technical point - while confirming lower appellate court dismissal order , it not necessary to decided the technical point =The suit was filed in the year 1982. The Trial Court has noted that the property was given on rent by defendant to other person with regard to which there was another agreement. The possession was not with the appellant or defendant and was with the third person. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence available on record, has categorically held that plaintiff had failed to prove that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, as required by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. We are of the view that in the present case it is not necessary for us to consider the issues pertaining to abatement of appeal on the ground that appellant did not bring on the record all the legal heirs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4132 OF 2008
MOHAN LAL                                   APPELLANT(S)
                                VERSUS
RAM KANWAR (D) THR. LRS. & ANR.             RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
This   appeal   has   been   filed   against   the   judgment   of
the High Court dated 11.09.2007 in Civil Revision No.1903
of   1994   by   which   judgment   Civil   Revision   filed   by   the
appellant   has   been   dismissed.   The   appellant   had   filed   a
suit   No.338/1982   for   specific   performance   of   contract
dated 29.09.1982.
The   appellant's   case   was   that   he   entered   into   an
agreement   of   sale   with   Raghubir   Prasad,   the   defendant,
for   a   consideration   of   Rs.6000/-.   An   amount   of   Rs.200/-
was paid, as advance, at the time of agreement. Sale deed
was to be executed within 20 days and when sale deed was
not   executed,   suit   has   been   filed.   In   the   Trial   Court
defendant   appeared   and   filed   a   written   statement.   The
Trial   Court   framed   six   issues   and   while   considering   the
relief   returned   a   finding   that   plaintiff   failed   to   prove
that   he   was   ready   and   willing   to   perform   his   part   of
contract. The suit for relief of specific performance was
1

denied   and   the   suit   was   dismissed.   The   Trial   Court   in
paragraph 18 of the judgment has considered in detail the
evidence   and   came   to   a   finding   that   plaintiff   was   not
ready   and   willing   to   perform   his   part   of   contract.   An
appeal   was   filed   against   the   said   judgment   by   the
appellant  in   which  appeal   the  appellant   did  not   bring  on
record   all   the   heirs   of   deceased   except   two   sons   who
themselves came forward and got impleaded.
The   learned   District   Judge   held   the   appeal   to   be
abated.   The   District   Judge   while   abating   the   appeal   has
noticed that even in the application filed by two sons of
deceased   the   details   of   all   the   heirs   were   mentioned,
still the appellant did not take steps for bringing legal
heirs   on   record.   Against   the   judgment   of   District   Judge,
abating   the   appeal,   civil   revision   was   filed   which   was
also dismissed by the High Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that High
Court   as   well   as   the   District   Judge   committed   error   in
dismissing the revision and abating the appeal and matter
ought   to   have   been   heard   on   merits.   Learned   counsel   for
the   appellant   further   submitted   that   the   Trial   Court
committed   error   in   dismissing   the   suit   and   appellant   was
entitled to address the Appellate Court on the merits and
satisfy   the   Court   that   he   was   ready   and   willing   to
perform his part of contract.
We   have   considered   the   submissions   of   learned
counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
2

The suit was filed in the year 1982. The Trial Court
has   noted   that   the   property   was   given   on   rent   by
defendant  to   other  person   with  regard   to  which   there  was
another   agreement.   The   possession   was   not   with   the
appellant or defendant and was with the third person. The
Trial   Court,   after   considering   the   evidence   available   on
record,   has   categorically   held   that   plaintiff   had   failed
to   prove   that   he   was   ready   and   willing   to   perform   his
part   of   contract,   as   required   by   Section   16(c)   of   the
Specific   Relief   Act.   We   are   of   the   view   that   in   the
present   case   it   is   not   necessary   for   us   to   consider   the
issues   pertaining   to   abatement   of   appeal   on   the   ground
that appellant did not bring on the record all the legal
heirs.   The   findings   of   Trial   Court   were   well   considered
and need no interference.
There   is   no   merit   in   the   appeal,   which   is
accordingly dismissed.     
 
...................J.
 (ASHOK BHUSHAN)
...................J.
 (NAVIN SINHA)
New Delhi
July 11, 2019
3

ITEM NO.103               COURT NO.12               SECTION IV
               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).4132/2008
MOHAN LAL                                          Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
RAM KANWAR (D) THR. LRS. & ANR.                    Respondent(s)
(WITH   IA   NO.   55745/2008   (registered   as   I.A.   No.3/2008   in   CIS)
[APPLICATION   FOR   MODIFICATION   /CLARIFICATION   OF   THE   ORDER   DATED
14.5.2008]

Date : 11-07-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHUSHAN
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
For Appellant(s)
Mr. R.K. Kapoor, ADv.
Ms. Shweta Kapoor, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Kapoor, Adv.
Ms. Priya Pandey, Adv.
                    Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan, AOR
                 
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Siddharth Mittal, AOR
Mr. Parbhat Kumar, Adv.
                   
          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(ARJUN BISHT)                                   (RENU KAPOOR)
COURT MASTER (SH)                               BRANCH OFFICER
(signed order is placed on the file)
4