Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8866-8868 OF 2003
A PRAMEELA REDDY ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
KARNATAKA MANGAMMA ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. This appeal by way of special leave is against
the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the trial
court and by the High Court in first appeal decreeing
the suit filed by the respondent. The matter
th
originated from an agreement to sell dated 5
December, 1970 executed by the appellant, A.P. Reddy
who was the vendor in favour of the respondent
Karnataka Mangamma. 2. Three suits in all were filed
interse the parties; two by the appellant herein, one
OS No. 187/1990 for perpetual injunction, a second OS
No. 648/1985 filed by the respondent Karnataka Mangamma
for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated
th
5 December, 1970 and the third OS No. 108//88 by the
2
appellant for eviction of the respondent. The trial
court framed the following issues:
“OS No. 648/1985
(1) Whether the agreement of
sale dated 05.12.1970 is true, valid and
binding on the defendant?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is
entitled to the specific performance as
prayed for?
(3) To what relief?
OS No. 187 of 1990
(1) Whether the plaintiff is
entitled to perpetual injunction as
prayed for?
(2) To what relief?
OS No. 108 of 1988:
(1) Whether the defendant is in
permissive possession of the suit house?
(2) Whether the possession of
the defendant in the suit house is in
part performance of the agreement of sale
dated 05.12.1970?
(3) Whether the suit claim is
barred by adverse possession?
(4) To what relief?”
3. The first two suits were decreed by the trial
court whereas the third suit was dismissed. These
orders have been confirmed by the High Court in appeal.
The present appeal is the outcome of the orders of the
High Court.
3
4. At the very outset, Mr. M.N. Rao, the learned
senior counsel for the appellant-A.P. Reddy, has
pointed out that one of the issues that ought to have
been raised and decided was the validity of the
th
agreement to sell dated 5 December, 1970 in the light
of the transfer of the property in dispute in violation
th
of the lease agreement dated 10 December, 1969 and
the various documents filed in the suit and it was thus
appropriate that the matter be remanded to the trial
court or the High Court for re-decision.
5. Mr. Rao has also challenged the concurrent
findings of fact recorded by the courts against the
appellant herein.
6. Mr. Vishwanath Shetty, the learned senior
counsel for the respondent has, however, pointed out
that the primary issue raised before the trial court
and the High Court was with regard to the validity of
th
the agreement dated 5 December, 1970 as the appellant
had denied having executed it and there was no
reference whatsoever in the pleadings with regard to
the validity of the aforesaid agreement in the
th
background of the lease agreement dated 10 December,
1969, and to remand the case for decision afresh on
this limited issue after a gap of forty years could not
be justified and would amount to a travesty of justice.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the
4
parties and also have gone through the records
carefully. It would perhaps be true to say that the
th
validity of the agreement dated 5 December, 1970
could have been the subject matter of a challenge in
th
the background of the lease agreement dated 10
December, 1969 which forbade a transfer to a third
party. We are, however, not called upon to determine
this fact as admittedly this issue has been raised for
the first time at the stage of special leave. We are
therefore not inclined to grant permission to raise
this additional plea in this Court at this belated
stage.
8. We thus see no reason to interfere in these
appeals.
9. The appeals are dismissed in the aforesaid
terms.
..................J
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI]
..................J
[C.K. PRASAD]
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 09, 2010.