Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SUKHBIR SINGH & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BRIJ PAL SINGH & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/05/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (6) 389 1996 SCALE (5)342
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This special leave petition arises from the order of
the Allahabad High Court dated April 1, 1996 passed in S.A.
No. 680 of 1995 .
The first petitioner is a purchaser from the respondent
of the land under registered sale deed dated March 103 1975
with a contemporaneous agreement of reconveyance to the
respondent within a period of two years from the said date.
The first respondent laid suit for specific performance
pleading that despite his readiness and willingness the
petitioner had avoided to sell back the property. He pleaded
that despite his making several requests to execute the sale
deed on receiving sale consideration, the petitioners went
on assuring to do the same but failed to execute the sale
deed. Ultimately, when the petitioners had agreed to have
the sale deed executed and get it registered in the office
of the Sub-Registrar at Muzaffarnagar on March 9, 1977, the
respondents kept waiting on that date for the petitioners to
come and execute the sale deed but the petitioners did not
turn upon an application moved by the respondents of their
presence, the Sub-Registrar had entered their attendance in
his office register on March 9, 1977. Though the respondents
tried to reach out the petitioners on March 10, 1977 the
petitioners intentionally avoided to execute the sale deed
in their favour. Consequently their efforts to have the
property reconveyed failed to, they laid the suit for
specific performance of the agreement. The petitioners
pleaded that though they had executed agreement of
reconveyance, the same was cancelled by another agreement
dated June 4, 1975, Ex. A-1. They also pleaded that they
were always ready and willing to perform their part of the
agreement. The respondent did not have sufficient means to
pay the sale consideration of Rs. 47,600/-. The respondents
filed the suit only to blackmail the petitioners. After
framing appropriate issues, adduction of evidence and on
consideration thereof, the trial Court dismissed the suit
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
holding that the respondents had failed to prove that they
were willing to perform their part of the contract nor have
they enough funds to repurchase the lands in dispute. But
on appeal, the Additional District Judge in C.A. No.72/1992
allowed and decreed the suit on may 22, 1995 and decreed the
suit and the second appeal came to be dismissed by the High
Court by the impugned order.
Shri Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the petitioner
contended that the suit is not in conformity with Forms 47
and 48 of Appendix AA of the Code of Civil Procedure [Code]
as amended by the High Court of Allahabad. The respondents
have not pleaded, as enjoined in Section 16 [1] (c) of the
Specified Reliefs Act, 1963 [for short, the "Act"] that the
respondents had ready money for getting the sale deed
executed. The decrees of the appellate Court as well as of
the High Court are, therefore, bad in law. We find no force
in the contentions.
In paragraphs 5, 9 and 10 of the plaint the respondents
have in substance pleaded that they have been and were still
willing to perform their part of the agreement and the
defendants did have notice in that behalf. It is seen that
averments made in the above paragraphs are in substance as
per Forms 47 and 48 prescribed in Appendix AA of the Code as
amended by the High Court. What requires to be considered is
whether the essential facts constituting the ingredients in
Section 16 [1] (c) of the Act were pleaded and that found
mentioned in the said Forms do in substance point to those
facts. The procedure is the hand-maid to the substantive
rights of the parties. It would, therefore, be clear from a
perusal of the pleadings and the forms that the averments
are consistent with the Forms. When the respondents had
pleaded and proved by the by the Sub Registrar’s endorsement
as per paper No.41/C that the respondents were present in
the office of the Sub-Registrar for having the sale deed
executed and registered by the petitioners, it would be
explicit that the respondents were ready and willing to
perform their part of the agreement. The facts that the
petitioners did not attend the office would prove positively
that the petitioners had avoided execution of the sale deed.
Law is not in doubt and it is not a condition that the
respondents should have ready cash with them. The fact that
they attended the Sub-Registrar’s office to have the sale
deed executed and waited for the petitioners to attend the
office of the Sub-Registrar is a positive fact to prove that
they had necessary funds to pass on consideration and had
with them the needed money with them for payment at the time
of registration. It is sufficient for the respondents to
establish that they had the capacity to pay the sale
consideration. It is not necessary that they should always
carry the money with them from the date of the suit till
date of the decree. It would, therefore, be clear that the
courts below have appropriately exercised their discretion
for granting the relief of specific performance to the
respondents on sound principles of law.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.