Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2759 OF 2002
Karturi Prasad Rao ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Karturi Surya Kanthamma ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for specific
th
performance of agreement dated 29 May, 1976 whereby the
defendant-respondent agreed to purchase 3 acres and 6-1/2
guntas of land for a sum of Rs.42,000/-. The appellant
claimed that even though he was always ready and willing
to perform his part of the contract, the respondent did
not pay the balance amount and did not get the sale deed
th
executed. By judgment dated 30 June, 1988, the trial
court decreed the suit and directed the respondent to pay
to the appellant Rs.45,105/- together with interest at the
rate of sixteen per cent per annum from the date of suit
till the date of decree and interest at the rate of six
per cent per annum from the date of decree till the date
of payment on the amount of Rs.31,000/-. The trial court
further directed the respondent to obtain sale deed in
terms of the agreement within a period of three months.
...2/-
- 2 -
The respondent challenged the judgment and decree
of the trial court by filing an appeal. She also applied
for the interim relief, but her prayer for staying the
judgment and decree of the trial court was not granted.
Notwithstanding this, the respondent neither paid the
amount in terms of the decree of the trial court nor made
any attempt to get the sale deed executed. Therefore, the
appellant filed an application under Section 28 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 [for short, “the Act”] for
rescinding the contract and for issuance of a direction to
the respondent to deliver possession of the suit property
to him. The latter contested the application. After
rd
hearing the parties, the trial court passed order dated 3
August, 1993, whereby it directed that the agreement dated
th
29 May, 1976 shall stand rescinded. The trial court also
directed the respondent to restore possession of the suit
property to the appellant within a period of two months
from the date of the order.
The appeal filed by the respondent against the
th
judgment and decree dated 30 June, 1988 was finally
dismissed by the Ist Additional District Judge at Raichur
th
vide judgment dated 29 September, 1997. The lower
appellate court confirmed the findings recorded by the
trial court on the issue of readiness and willingness of
the appellant to perform his part of the contract and that
the respondent neither paid the balance amount in terms of
the agreement nor made any effort to obtain the sale deed.
The lower appellate court also took cognizance of order
rd
dated 3 August, 1993 passed by the trial court and the
fact that the said order has not been challenged by the
respondent.
...2/-
- 3 -
Feeling aggrieved by appellate judgment, the
respondent filed second appeal under Section 100 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, which was registered as RSA No.
12/1998. By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed
the second appeal, set aside the decree passed by the
trial court to the extent it contained a direction to the
respondent to pay interest on Rs.45,105/- and substituted
the same by directing the respondent to pay interest at
the rate of sixteen per cent per annum from the date of
suit till the date of decree. The High Court granted
three months’ time for making the payment and directed the
appellant to hand over possession of the suit property to
the respondent and execute sale deed within a month.
Hence, this appeal by special leave.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
carefully gone through the impugned judgment as also the
judgments and decrees of the trial court and lower
appellate court. In our opinion, the High Court committed
grave error by interfering with the concurrent findings of
fact recorded by the two courts, after threadbare
consideration of the factual matrix of the case and
evaluation of evidence produced by the parties, that even
though the appellant herein was ready and willing to
perform his part of the contract, the respondent herein
neither paid the balance amount nor made any effort to get
the sale deed executed and registered. In the impugned
judgment the High Court has nowhere found that the
findings recorded by the courts below were perverse.
Therefore, there was no occasion for it to upset those
findings.
...4/-
- 4 -
We are further of the view that the High Court
rd
committed serious error in observing that order dated 3
August, 1993 passed by the trial court under Section 28 of
the Act, was subject to the final judgment of the appeal
preferred by the respondent against the judgment and
decree of the trial court. The High Court ought to have
taken note of the fact that in the absence of any
rd
challenge to order dated 3 August, 1993, the direction of
the trial court that the contract shall stand rescinded
became final and, in that view of the matter, no decree
could have been passed in favour of the respondent
enabling her to secure possession of the suit property by
paying the balance consideration and that too after 26
years of execution of the agreement of sale.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned
judgment rendered by the High Court in second appeal is
set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court,
which was confirmed by the lower appellate court, is
restored.
No costs.
......................J.
[B.N. AGRAWAL]
......................J.
[G.S. SINGHVI]
......................J.
[AFTAB ALAM]
New Delhi,
September 03, 2009.