Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
REVAPPA GURUSIDDAPPA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THAKUBAI MADHAVARAO PATIL & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/09/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
FAIZAN UDDIN (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
This special leave petition has been filed against the
remand order of the High Court of Karnataka made on March
25, 1996 in R.S.A. No.196/90. The admitted position is that
the first respondent had entered into an agreement on March
11, 1983 to purchase 3 acres 28 gunthas of land for a
consideration of Rs.12,000/- and he paid Rs. 2000/- as
earnest money. The petitioner-second defendant purchased the
self-same property on July 8, 1983 for a consideration of
Rs. 6000/- and had the sale deed registered. The first
respondent filed the suit for specific performance. The
trial Court finding that the petitioner had purchased the
property and it would cause irreparable damage to him if
decree for specific performance being would be granted, had
directed refund of the earnest money with interest. The
first respondent carried the matter in appeal. The appellate
Court set aside the decree of the trial Court on the finding
that the petitioner had not pleaded that he was a bona fide
purchaser for value without notice of the prior agreement
of sale. It also had held that the refusal to grant relief
of specific performance on that ground was not valid in law.
Accordingly, it reversed the decree of the trial Court and
granted specific performance. In the second appeal, the High
Court while upholding the pleading of the respondent that he
was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement
and willing to perform his part of the agreement and that he
had led the evidence in that behalf, remitted the matter to
the district Court to frame an issue on the basis of a
previous judgment and the issue in this behalf was required
to be settled. We need not go into the correctness of the
remand order since the first respondent has not filed any
SLP against that order. Suffice it to state that the
petitioner has no cause for grievance in this matter for
remanding the matter. In view of the finding that he is
subsequent purchaser, as found by the trial Court itself,
and that the High Court has remitted the matter to frame the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
issue whether the first respondent was ready and willing to
perform his part of the contract and decide the matter on
the basis of the evidence already on record, we do not think
that there is any error of law committed by the High Court
in remitting the matter.
The SLP is accordingly dismissed.