Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
BHAGWANDAS FATECHANCI DASWANI & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
HPA INTERNATIONAL AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/01/2000
BENCH:
V.N.Khare, N.Santosh Hegde
JUDGMENT:
DER
The defendant-appellants, who are the subsequent
purchasers, are in appeal. This appeal is directed against
tile judgment of Madras High Court dated 24th January, 1994
whereby the decree for specific performance of the agreement
passed by the trial court was affirmed.
On 26th June, 1977 respondent No. 2 entered into an
agreement with first respondent serein, for transfer of his
life interest in the property in dispute. On 29.2.79.
respondent No. 2 transferred the rights in favour of the
defendant-appellants who are the subsequent purchasers for
consideration of Rs. 4.40 lakhs. Under such circumstances,
plaintiff- respondent No. I brought a suit for specific
performance, which was decreed by the trial court and the
appeal preferred to the Hight Court was dismissed. It is in
this way the defendant-appellants are before us.
Learned Attorney General appearing for the appellants
urged that, before the High Court, the hearing of the appeal
was concluded on 22 March, 1989 but the judgment was
delivered on 24th January, 1994 - nearly five years after
the hearing was concluded, and this long delay in delivery
of judgment by itself is sufficient to set aside the
judgment under appeal. Learned Attorney General has also
relied upon decision of the Court in the case of Kanwar
Sinsk and others vs. Sri Thakurii Mahany - 1995 Supp (4)
SCC 125. At present, we are not deposed to go into this
broad question as urged by the learned Attorney General.
However, it is correct to this extent that long delay in
delivery of judgment gives rise to unnecessary speculations
in the mind of parties to a case. Moreover, the appellants
whose appeals have been dismissed by the High Court may have
the apprehension that the arguments raised at the bar have
not been reflected or appreciated while dictating the
judgment - nearly after five years. This is fairly not
disputed by learned senior counsel, Shri K. Parasaran,
appearing for respondent No. 1. We, therefore, on this
short question, set aside the judgment under appeal without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and remit
the case to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh,
on merits. In view of the fact, that the matter has been
pending for a considerable period of time, we request the
High Court to decide the matter expeditiously, if possible,
within six months.
Before we part with the case, we would like to observe
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
that when this appeal was filed in this Court, the interim
relief prayed for by the appellants was refused. As a
consequence, respondent No. 2 executed a sale deed in
favour of respondent No. I, and respondent No. I came in
possession of the property and since then, he continues to
be in possession. Under such circumstances, respondent No.
I being the lawful owner, so long the decree remains intact,
is entitled to continue in possession over the property in
dispute. Learned Attorney General urged that, incase
respondent No. I is to continue in possession over the
property, the interest of the appellants may also to be
protected. It is then, learned counsel for the parties made
an agreed stetement that during the pendency of the appeal
before the High Court respondent No. I shall not create any
third party right in respect of the property in dispute and
further shall deposit the rent/income received from that
property in the High Court after deducting the maintenance
charges and tax liabilities which shall be subject to the
decision of the appeal in the High Court. We order
accordingly.
The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to
costs. All the 1. As are disposed of accordingly.