Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
REVAPPA GURUSIDDAPPA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THAKUBSI 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 1eave petition has been fi1ed 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 puchase 3 acres 28 gunthas of land for a
consideration of Rs.12,000/- and he had paid Rs.2000/- as
earnest money. The petitioner-second defendant puchased 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 petitoner had purchased the
property and it would cause irreparable damage to him if
decree for specific performance being would be granted, had
derected 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 rlief 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 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 a subsequent purchaser, as found by the trial Court
itself, and that the High Court has remitted the matter to
frame the issue whether the first respondent was ready and
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.