IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4258-4259/2019
(ARISING FROM SLP(C) NOS. 28779-28780/2016)
ABDUL GAFFOR SAB (D) BY LRS & ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MASAVALLI RAMAPPA (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. This case has a chequered history. An agreement to sell was
entered into on 23.03.1984 between one B. Hussain Sab and one
Masavalli Ramappa with respect to suit schedule properties for a
sum of Rs.1,05,000/-. A sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid at the time of
the agreement to sell. Thereafter on 21.06.1984, a sum of
Rs.10,000/- and on 19.12.1984 a sum of Rs.9,000/- was paid. B.
Hussain Sab died on or about 12.09.1985. Abdul Gaffoor Sab, son of
B. Hussain Sab, filed a suit on the basis of relinquishment made by
the daughters of B. Hussain Sab in his favour with respect to the
entire property and mutation of the name of Abdul Gaffoor Sab has
been made in the revenue records. Abdul Gaffoor Sab filed Original
1
Suit No.161/1985.
3. On 21.03.1986, a notice was served by Masavalli Ramappa
calling upon Abdul Gaffoor Sab to execute a registered sale deed of
Survey No.54 and 78 A and house property. The third item of the
property being Survey No.87 A, which was included in the agreement
to sell, was not included in the notice. Yet another notice was
issued by Masavalli Ramappa on 10.04.1987 to the children of Late
B. Hussain Sab. In the year 1987, O.S. No.161/1985 was filed
before the Court of Munsif Hadagali, which was ordered to be
returned as the property was under valued for presentation to the
appropriate Court. It was not presented again and a fresh suit
being O.S. No.37/1991 was filed by Abdul Gaffoor Sab. Masavalli
Ramappa filed a suit for specific performance of Agreement to Sell,
which was registered as O.S. No.56/1991.
4. The Trial Court clubbed both the suits and decreed the suit
being O.S. No.37/1991 filed by the appellants and they were
declared to be the absolute owners, whereas the O.S. NO.56/1991
filed by Masavalli Ramappa for specific performance of the
Agreement to Sell dated 23.03.1984 was dismissed by clearly
recording a finding that Masavalli Ramappa/plaintiff has not been
able to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of
the contract and he was not having any arrangement of money also.
The appeals were preferred before the High Court. The High Court
has allowed the appeal filed on behalf of the respondents and
2
dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering
the fact that the Trial Court has given a specific finding with
respect to the material aspect that the plaintiff/Masavalli Ramappa
in C.S. No.56/1991 has not been able to establish readiness and
willingness to perform his part of the contract and he was not
having arrangement for money. The High Court has not reversed this
finding. We have considered the merits of the findings. The
findings recorded by the Trial Court seems to be impeccable and
based on proper appreciation of the evidence. As such, we have no
hesitation to allow this appeal on the aforesaid ground alone.
However, as the refund of the earnest money has been claimed and a
sum of Rs.49,000/- was paid way back in the year 1984 and now 38
years have passed, it will be appropriate to direct the respondents
to refund a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, which has been rightly offered by
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant also.
The said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- be paid within a period of three
months from today.
6. The suit filed by the appellant(s) for possession is decreed
and the suit filed by the respondent(s) for specific performance
stands dismissed. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court
stands restored with the aforesaid modification.
7. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above.
8. There shall be no orders as to costs.
3
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
...........................J.
[ARUN MISHRA]
...........................J.
[NAVIN SINHA]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 24, 2019.
4
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.4 SECTION IV-A
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).28779-28780/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-02-2015
in RFA No. 13/2002 05-02-2015 in RFA No. 11/2002 passed by the High
Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad)
ABDUL GAFFOR SAB (D) BY LRS & ANR. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
MASAVALLI RAMAPPA (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
(IA 1/2016-C/DELAY IN FILING, 3/2016-C/DELAY IN REFILING)
Date : 24-04-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Pranav Jain,Adv.
Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (JAGDISH CHANDER)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
5
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 4258-4259/2019
(ARISING FROM SLP(C) NOS. 28779-28780/2016)
ABDUL GAFFOR SAB (D) BY LRS & ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MASAVALLI RAMAPPA (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. This case has a chequered history. An agreement to sell was
entered into on 23.03.1984 between one B. Hussain Sab and one
Masavalli Ramappa with respect to suit schedule properties for a
sum of Rs.1,05,000/-. A sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid at the time of
the agreement to sell. Thereafter on 21.06.1984, a sum of
Rs.10,000/- and on 19.12.1984 a sum of Rs.9,000/- was paid. B.
Hussain Sab died on or about 12.09.1985. Abdul Gaffoor Sab, son of
B. Hussain Sab, filed a suit on the basis of relinquishment made by
the daughters of B. Hussain Sab in his favour with respect to the
entire property and mutation of the name of Abdul Gaffoor Sab has
been made in the revenue records. Abdul Gaffoor Sab filed Original
1
Suit No.161/1985.
3. On 21.03.1986, a notice was served by Masavalli Ramappa
calling upon Abdul Gaffoor Sab to execute a registered sale deed of
Survey No.54 and 78 A and house property. The third item of the
property being Survey No.87 A, which was included in the agreement
to sell, was not included in the notice. Yet another notice was
issued by Masavalli Ramappa on 10.04.1987 to the children of Late
B. Hussain Sab. In the year 1987, O.S. No.161/1985 was filed
before the Court of Munsif Hadagali, which was ordered to be
returned as the property was under valued for presentation to the
appropriate Court. It was not presented again and a fresh suit
being O.S. No.37/1991 was filed by Abdul Gaffoor Sab. Masavalli
Ramappa filed a suit for specific performance of Agreement to Sell,
which was registered as O.S. No.56/1991.
4. The Trial Court clubbed both the suits and decreed the suit
being O.S. No.37/1991 filed by the appellants and they were
declared to be the absolute owners, whereas the O.S. NO.56/1991
filed by Masavalli Ramappa for specific performance of the
Agreement to Sell dated 23.03.1984 was dismissed by clearly
recording a finding that Masavalli Ramappa/plaintiff has not been
able to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of
the contract and he was not having any arrangement of money also.
The appeals were preferred before the High Court. The High Court
has allowed the appeal filed on behalf of the respondents and
2
dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering
the fact that the Trial Court has given a specific finding with
respect to the material aspect that the plaintiff/Masavalli Ramappa
in C.S. No.56/1991 has not been able to establish readiness and
willingness to perform his part of the contract and he was not
having arrangement for money. The High Court has not reversed this
finding. We have considered the merits of the findings. The
findings recorded by the Trial Court seems to be impeccable and
based on proper appreciation of the evidence. As such, we have no
hesitation to allow this appeal on the aforesaid ground alone.
However, as the refund of the earnest money has been claimed and a
sum of Rs.49,000/- was paid way back in the year 1984 and now 38
years have passed, it will be appropriate to direct the respondents
to refund a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, which has been rightly offered by
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant also.
The said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- be paid within a period of three
months from today.
6. The suit filed by the appellant(s) for possession is decreed
and the suit filed by the respondent(s) for specific performance
stands dismissed. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court
stands restored with the aforesaid modification.
7. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above.
8. There shall be no orders as to costs.
3
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
...........................J.
[ARUN MISHRA]
...........................J.
[NAVIN SINHA]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 24, 2019.
4
ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.4 SECTION IV-A
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).28779-28780/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-02-2015
in RFA No. 13/2002 05-02-2015 in RFA No. 11/2002 passed by the High
Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad)
ABDUL GAFFOR SAB (D) BY LRS & ANR. PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
MASAVALLI RAMAPPA (D) BY LRS. AND ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
(IA 1/2016-C/DELAY IN FILING, 3/2016-C/DELAY IN REFILING)
Date : 24-04-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Pranav Jain,Adv.
Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (JAGDISH CHANDER)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
5
