Suit for Specific performance in alternative for refund of money - Trial court decreed, Appellant court confirmed -Trail court executed a registered sale deed also - High court reversed the same by saying that 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. - Apex court held that 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. However, 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 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. 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) 

Suit for Specific PerformaThe question of there being signatures on the endorsement would only arise, if there had been any agreement. If there was no agreement, there would be no endorsement. nce - Logic Point = Non denial of endorsement -The question of there being signatures on the endorsement would only arise, if there had been any agreement. If there was no agreement, there would be no endorsement. = The dispute raised by the defendant was that he and the plaintiff had business dealings in the past. Due to these business dealings, he had given signed blank papers to the plaintiff and the plaintiff had used some of the signed blank papers to create and forge the agreement. Reliance was also placed on certain similar agreements executed earlier which had been cancelled. The case of the defendant, as setup, was that his signatures both on the agreement and the endorsement were from blank papers. However, when the defendant stepped into the witness box, he made a statement that his signature on the agreement to sell [Exhibit P1] had been obtained on a blank paper but there was no such statement made with regard to endorsement extending the date to 17.08.1999 [Exhibit P2]. The Trial Court disbelieved the defendant and decreed the suit for specific performance. The First Appellate Court found that there was some gap between the body of the agreement and the place where the signature had been affixed to come to the conclusion that the signature may be on blank papers and allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The Second Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the First Appellate Court had completely ignored the signatures on the endorsement and therefore allowed the appeal and restored the judgment of the Trial Court. The question of there being signatures on the endorsement would only arise, if there had been any agreement. If there was no agreement, there would be no endorsement. The other questions raised are only questions of facts.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal  No(s).  7490/2008
GURCHARAN SINGH & ANR.                             Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
ASHWANI KUMAR                                      Respondent(s)
  O R D E R
This   appeal   is   directed   against   the   judgment   dated
03.09.2008 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
in   RSA   No.   1341   of   2007;   whereby   the   High   Court   allowed
the second appeal filed by the plaintiff and decreed the
suit for specific performance. 
The brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal
are   that   the   plaintiff   filed   a   suit   for   specific
performance on 17.06.1998 wherein it was alleged that the
defendant   agreed   to   sell   the   suit   land   to   the   plaintiff
for a sum of Rs.1,30,375/-.  It was further stated that a
sum   of   Rs.1,15,000/-   was   paid   at   the   time   of   agreement.
The sale deed in terms of the agreement to sell was to be
executed   on   or   before   17.06.1999,   on   which   date   on   the
reverse   of   the   agreement   to   sell,   a   further   endorsement
was   made   extending   the   time   for   execution   of   the   sale
deed to 17.08.1999.
The   dispute   raised   by   the   defendant   was   that   he   and
the plaintiff had business dealings in the past.   Due to
these business dealings, he had given signed blank papers
1

to   the   plaintiff   and   the   plaintiff   had   used   some   of   the
signed   blank   papers   to   create   and   forge   the   agreement.
Reliance   was   also   placed   on   certain   similar   agreements
executed   earlier   which   had   been   cancelled.     The   case   of
the defendant, as setup, was that his signatures both on
the agreement and the endorsement were from blank papers.
However, when the defendant stepped into the witness box,
he   made   a   statement   that   his   signature   on   the   agreement
to   sell   [Exhibit   P1]   had   been   obtained   on   a   blank   paper
but   there   was   no   such   statement   made   with   regard   to
endorsement   extending   the   date   to   17.08.1999   [Exhibit
P2].  
The Trial Court disbelieved the defendant and decreed
the   suit   for   specific   performance.     The   First   Appellate
Court   found   that   there   was   some   gap   between   the   body   of
the agreement and the place where the signature had been
affixed to come to the conclusion that the signature may
be   on   blank   papers   and   allowed   the   appeal   and   dismissed
the   suit.     The   Second   Appellate   Court   came   to   the
conclusion  that  the  First  Appellate  Court  had  completely
ignored   the   signatures   on   the   endorsement   and   therefore
allowed the appeal and restored the judgment of the Trial
Court.     The   question   of   there   being   signatures   on   the
endorsement   would   only   arise,   if   there   had   been   any
agreement.   If there was no agreement, there would be no
endorsement.     The   other   questions   raised   are   only
questions of facts.
2

We   find   no   merit   in   the   present   appeal.     The   civil
appeal is accordingly dismissed.
� ....................J.
[DEEPAK GUPTA]
� ....................J.
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE]
NEW DELHI;
August 7, 2019.
3

ITEM NO.102               COURT NO.13               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).  7490/2008
GURCHARAN SINGH & ANR.                             Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
ASHWANI KUMAR                                      Respondent(s)

Date : 07-08-2019  This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
For Appellant(s) Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Jain, Adv.
Mr. Aniket Jain, Adv.
Mr. Ugra Shankar Prasad, AOR
                 
For Respondent(s) Mr. Anand Padmanatan, Adv.
Mr. Azim H. Laskar, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Das, Adv.
Ms. Ekta Rani, Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, AOR
                   
         UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
The civil appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order. 
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(MEENAKSHI  KOHLI)                              (RENU KAPOOR)
  COURT MASTER      COURT MASTER
[Signed order is placed on the file]
4 

suit for specific performance - unfair to enforce such a conditional agreement= when we consider the stipulations in the agreement, it appears that the plaintiffs/respondents were not having the money to purchase the property as such this stipulation was mentioned in the agreement that Rs.5000/- would be paid after one year of the execution of the sale deed. Such stipulations cannot be said to be for making out and out transaction of sale. Apart from that it would be unfair to enforce such a conditional agreement. The aforesaid stipulations also has the adverse effect on the readiness and willingness which is required to be proved by the plaintiff/respondents to purchase the property and due arrangement of money from the date of agreement till the decree is passed.In the circumstances, the decisions of the Courts below of directing specific performance of such an agreement cannot be said to be proper and in accordance with law. The Courts below have ignored and overlooked the nature of the agreement and the stipulations mentioned therein. It would be unfair, unjust, inequitable and not in accordance with law to grant specific performance of such an agreement.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S).  7533/2008
GAJANAN WAMAN CHIKHALE AND ORS.  APPELLANT(S)
                          
       VERSUS
RAMDAS BAKARAM THOMBRE AND ANR.                  RESPONDENT(S)
        O R D E R
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2.  The   appellants   are   the   legal   representatives   of   the
defendant   and   the   respondents   are   the   plaintiffs.     The
original   defendant/Wamanrao,   died   during   the   pendency   of   the
appeal before the Courts below and the respondents herein were
brought   on   record   as   his   legal   heirs.   The
plaintiff(s)/respondents contracted to purchase the suit house
from   the   defendant/Wamanrao   for   a   consideration   of
Rs.25,000/-,   on   25.10.1976.     As   the   defendant//Wamanrao   was
indebted on account of loans of agricultural property etc. he
wanted   to   sell   the   suit   house   in   order   to   pay   off   the   debts.
In   pursuance   of   the   agreement   dated   25.10.1976,   the
1

plaintiffs/respondents   paid   Rs.5,000/-   to   defendant/Wamanrao
as   earnest   money.     As   per   agreement   between   them,   the   amount
of   Rs.15,000/-   was   to   be   paid   at   the   time   of   execution   and
registration   of   the   sale   deed   before   the   Sub   Registrar.     It
was   further   agreed   between   them   that   defendant/Wamanrao   would
receive   the   balance   amount   of   Rs.5,000/-   within   a   year   after
the   date   of   execution   of   the   sale   deed.     It   was   agreed   to   be
executed on 31.03.1977.   It was also agreed between them that
in   case   any   of   the   party   to   the   contract   resiles   from   the
terms of the contract, then the party resiling will be liable
to pay Rs.10,000/- to the other side as penalty for breach of
contract.     Defendant/Wamanrao   had   agreed   to   deliver   the
possession   of   the   suit   house   before   the   sale   deed.     The
agreement   dated   25.10.1976   was   thus   executed   by
defendant/Wamanrao   in   the   presence   of   attesting   witnesses.
The   plaintiffs/respondents   immediately   thereafter   paid
Rs.5,000/-   to   him.     The   plaintiffs/respondents   gave   a   public
notice   in   the   newspaper,   in   order   to   ascertain   any   kind   of
encumbrance.     According   to   the   plaintiffs/respondents,   they
were   always   ready   and   willing   to   perform   their   part   of   the
contract   and   on   30.03.1977   they   contacted   the
defendant/Wamanrao.     The   defendant/Wamanrao   requested   them   to
grant   further   time   in   order   to   find   any   rented   house   or
accommodation for him and to deliver vacant possession of the
2

suit   house.     It   was   then   agreed   between   them   that
defendant/Wamanrao   would   give   vacant   possession   of   the   suit
house and thereafter the sale deed of the suit house was to be
executed.      On  27.04.1977,  the  plaintiffs/respondents  went  to
the   house   of   the   defendant/Wamanrao   but   he   was   not   there   and
they   were   told   by   the   inmates   that   he   had   gone   out.     The
plaintiffs/respondents then served a notice on him on the same
days   i.e.   on   27.04.1977.   On   30.04.1977   defendant/Wamanrao
orally   informed   the   plaintiffs/respondents   that   he   was   not
ready   to   execute   the   sale   deed.   The   plaintiffs/respondents
then filed the suit for specific performance of the contract.
3.  The Trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance
of   the   contract.     Aggrieved   by   the   said   order,   the
defendant(s)/appellants   filed   appeal   before   the   Appellate
Court.     The   appellate   Court   affirmed   the   order   of   the   Trial
Court   and   dismissed   the   appeal.     Against   the   said   order,   the
defendant(s)/appellant(s)   filed   second   appeal   before   the   High
Court, which was also dismissed.   Hence the present appeal is
filed by the defendant/appellants.
4. After   hearing   learned   counsel   for   the   parties,   we   are   of
the opinion that the Courts below committed grave error of law
while decreeing the suit.  The form in which the agreement was
couched itself indicated that it was intended for securing the
loan.     The   parties   had   agreed   to   obtain   the   amount   of
3

compensation, in case the sale deed was not to be executed at
Rs.10,000/-.   The agreement had been entered into for sale of
5000 sq. ft.  of land for a sum of Rs.25,000/-.  Rs.5,000/- was
paid by way of earnest money and Rs.15,000/- was to be paid at
the   time   of   execution   of   the   sale   deed   and   the   remaining   sum
of   Rs.5000/-   was   agreed   to   be   paid   after   one   year   of   the
execution   of   the   sale   deed.     The   reading   of   the   entire
agreement leaves no doubt that the plaintiffs have prima facie
obtained the loan and as such there was stipulation of payment
of   compensation   of   Rs.10,000/-.       Apart   from   that,   when   we
consider   the   stipulations   in   the   agreement,   it   appears   that
the   plaintiffs/respondents   were   not   having   the   money   to
purchase   the   property   as   such   this   stipulation   was   mentioned
in   the   agreement   that   Rs.5000/-   would   be   paid   after   one   year
of   the   execution   of   the   sale   deed.     Such   stipulations   cannot
be   said   to   be   for   making   out   and   out   transaction   of   sale.
Apart   from   that   it   would   be   unfair   to   enforce   such   a
conditional   agreement.     The   aforesaid   stipulations   also   has
the   adverse   effect   on   the   readiness   and   willingness   which   is
required to be proved by the plaintiff/respondents to purchase
the   property   and   due   arrangement   of   money   from   the   date   of
agreement till the decree is passed.
5. In   the   circumstances,   the   decisions   of   the   Courts   below
of  directing  specific  performance  of  such  an  agreement  cannot
4

be   said   to   be   proper   and   in   accordance   with   law.     The   Courts
below have ignored and overlooked the nature of the agreement
and   the   stipulations   mentioned   therein.     It   would   be   unfair,
unjust,   inequitable   and   not   in   accordance   with   law   to   grant
specific performance of such an agreement.  
6. In   the   circumstances,   we   set   aside   the   judgment   and
decree   passed   by   the   Courts   below   decreeing   the   suit   of   the
plaintiffs and directing specific performance of the agreement
to   sell   the   property   in   question.     However,   at   the   same   time
when we come to the adjustment of the equities, it was fairly
offered   by   the   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
appellants that since an amount of Rs.5000/- was paid way back
in the year   1976   and by now 43 years have passed, it would be
appropriate   to   refund   an   amount   of   Rs.1,00,000/-   instead   of
Rs.5,000/- in order to do complete justice between the parties
as a  sum of Rs.5000/- had been received by the appellants from
the   plaintiffs.   We   direct   them   to   make   the   payment   of
Rs.1,00,000/-   to   plaintiffs/respondents,   within   a   period   of
three months from today.
7. The   judgment   and   decree   passed   by   the   Courts   below   are
modified   accordingly.   The   specific   performance   of   the
agreement   is   declined.   The   appeal   is,   accordingly,   disposed
of.
5

8. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
...........................J.
[ARUN MISHRA]
...........................J.
[NAVIN SINHA]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 07, 2019.
6

ITEM NO.105               COURT NO.4               SECTION IX
               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).  7533/2008
GAJANAN WAMAN CHIKHALE AND ORS.              APPELLANT(S)
                                VERSUS
RAMDAS BAKARAM THOMBRE AND ANR.                  RESPONDENT(S)

Date : 07-03-2019 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : 
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
For Appellant(s) Mr. Kishore Lambat,Adv.
                   For M/s. Lambat And Associates
                   
For Respondent(s) Mr. Satyajit A. Desai,Adv.
Ms. Priyanka Goel,Adv.
                   Ms. Anagha S. Desai, 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.
(NARENDRA PRASAD)                        (JAGDISH CHANDER)
  COURT MASTER                                COURT MASTER  
(Signed order is placed on the file)
7 

specific performance -The agreement of sale was dependent on certain conditions, inter alia that the first defendant shall perfect his title and get a sale deed in his favour from Bangalore Development Authority. Such sale-deed in favour of first defendant was executed on 5.10.1999. Thereafter, a notice was issued by first defendant on 22.11.1999 and by first defendant�s lawyer on 25.11.1999. However, by a subsequent sale deed dated 9.2.2000, the suit property was sought to be conveyed in favour of defendants 2 and 3 for a sum of Rs.4.8 Lakhs, at half the price at which the property was agreed to be sold in favour of the plaintiff.-The subsequent suit filed seeking specific performance of the agreement dated 3.9.1999 was decreed on all counts. It was found that the breach was on the part of the first-defendant and the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his obligations.- Apex court confirmed the lowers courts orders but However, considering the fact that the subsequent purchasers (original-defendant Nos. 2&3) had erected some construction upon the land, we direct the first respondent (original-plaintiff) to make over a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to defendants 2 & 3 within four weeks from today. Except for the modification as stated above, rest of the judgment and order under appeal stand affirmed.

1
ITEM NO.18               COURT NO.7               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).  35931/2016
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated  27-03-2015
in   RFA   No.   1114/2009   passed   by   the   High   Court   Of   Karnataka   At
Bengaluru)
B.V. GOWDA                                         Petitioner(s)
                                VERSUS
COL. FRANCIS A.M. MACHADO & ORS.                 Respondent(s)

WITH
Diary No(s). 4789/2019 (IV-A)
(IA   No.25183/2019-CONDONATION   OF   DELAY   IN   FILING   and   IA
No.25184/2019- EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

Date : 31-07-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ashok Bannidinni, AOR
Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, Adv
Mr. Mallikarjun S. Mylar, Adv
                   Mrs. S. Usha Reddy, AOR
                 
For Respondent(s)   Mr. Siddharth Dias, Adv.
Mr. Devansh Gandhi, Adv.
                    Mr. Puneet Sharma, AOR
Mr. Ashok Bannidinni, AOR
                    Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR
                   
          UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                             O R D E R
Delay condoned.
These   petitions   arise   out   of   final   judgment   and   order   dated

2
27.3.2015   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka,   Bengaluru   in   RFA
No.1114 of 2009 and 987 of 2009.
The original-defendants had challenged the judgment and decree
passed by the XIIIth Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.
No.15115 of 2000 decreeing the suit for specific performance filed
by  Respondent No.1 herein.  The judgment and decree so challenged,
was   affirmed   by   the   High   Court   while   dismissing   said   RFA   Nos.1114
of   2009   and     987   of   2009   preferred   by   the   original-defendant   No.1
and   original-defendant   Nos.   2   &   3   are   subsequent   purchasers   from
original-defendant No.1.
The   agreement   in   question,   was   dated   3.9.1999   in   which   the
agreed   consideration     amount   for   the   transaction   was   stated   to   be
9.60   lakhs,   out   of   which   one   lakh   was   paid   on   the   date   of   the
agreement.   It is a matter of record that subsequently Rs.30,000/-
was   also   paid   towards   consideration.     The   agreement   was   dependent
on   certain   conditions,   inter   alia   that     the   first   defendant   shall
perfect his title and get a sale deed in his favour from Bangalore
Development Authority.  Such sale-deed in favour of first defendant
was   executed   on   5.10.1999.     Thereafter,   a   notice   was   issued   by
first   defendant   on   22.11.1999   and   by   first   defendant�s   lawyer   on
25.11.1999.     However,   by   a   subsequent   sale   deed   dated   9.2.2000,
the suit property was sought to be conveyed in favour of defendants
2 and 3 for a sum of Rs.4.8 Lakhs, at  half the  price at which the
property was agreed to be sold in favour of the plaintiff.
The   subsequent   suit   filed   seeking   specific   performance   of   the

3
agreement   dated   3.9.1999   was   decreed   on   all   counts.     It   was   found
that   the   breach   was   on   the   part   of   the   first-defendant   and   the
plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his obligations.
With   the   assistance   of   the   learned   counsel,   we   have   gone
through the record and considered rival submissions.  On merits, we
do   not   find   any   reason   to   take   a   different   view   in   the   matter.   
However,   considering   the   fact   that   the   subsequent   purchasers
(original-defendant   Nos.   2&3)   had   erected   some   construction   upon
the   land,     we   direct   the   first   respondent   (original-plaintiff)   to
make over a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to defendants 2 & 3 within four weeks
from   today.     Except   for   the   modification   as   stated   above,   rest   of
the judgment and order under appeal stand affirmed.
The special leave petitions are dismissed.
Since soon after the judgment and decree passed by the trial
court, the requisite amount was deposited by the plaintiff in the
trial court,  the first-respondent shall be entitled  to withdraw
the said amount with interest accrued thereon.
 Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed  of.
(INDU MARWAH)                                   (SUMAN JAIN)
COURT MASTER                                   BRANCH OFFICER 

Suit for possession -vs- suit for specific performance in alternative for refund of amount = 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.

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