Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
KANSHI RAM
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
OM PRAKASH JAWAL & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/04/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (4) 593 JT 1996 (4) 733
1996 SCALE (4)194
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
and order dated April 18, 1995 of the Delhi High Court made
in RFA No.217/72. The admitted position is that an agreement
of sale dated April 7, 1969 was executed to convey the
property on the plot of land admeasuring 100 square yards
situated in Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi for
Rs.16,000/- and Rs.2,500/- was paid as earnest money. The
respondent filed the suit on July 13, 1970 for the specific
performance if the agreement and also claimed, alternatively
damages for a sum of Rs. 12,00/- with interest payable
thereon. The courts below have granted the decree for
specific performance. Thus this appeal by special leave.
The learned counsel for the appellant has fairly
contended that specific performance of the contract is
within the discretion of the Court and is not a matter of
course. The courts in granting the decree for specific
performance should exercise the discretion on sound
principles of law. In the event of working out the equities,
the courts would in an appropriate case, grant alternative
relief, stead of granting the decree for specific
performance. In support thereof, he sought to place reliance
on the judgment of this Court in S.Rangaraju Nidu v. S.
Thiruvarakkarasu [AIR 1995 SC 1769]. He contended that the
appellant is prepared to pay a sum Rs.10 lakhs as
alternative relief; though the respondent claimed
Rs.12,000/- instead of granting specific performance at this
distance of time which word be unjust, inequitable and
unfair.
It is contended by learned counsel for the respondents
that the respondent had secured balance honey and he was
always ready did willing to perform his part of the contract
which inding was affirmed by both the courts below; the
appellant had avoided execution of the sale deed;
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
therefore, the courts below have rightly granted the decree;
and there is no justification for interference with the
decree granted by the courts below.
Having regards to the facts of this case and the
arguments addressed by the learned counsel, the question
that arises for consideration is: whether it would be just,
fair and equitable to grant the decree for specific
performance? It is true that the rise in prices of the
property during the pendency of the suit may not be the sole
consideration for refusing to decree the suit for specific
performance. But it is equally settled law that granting
decree for specific performance of a contract of immovable
property is not automatic. It is one of discretion to be
exercised on sound principles. When the court gets into
equity jurisdiction, it would be guided by justice, equity,
good conscience and fairness to both the parties. Considered
from this perspective, in view of the fact that the
respondent himself had claimed alternative relief for
damages, we think that the courts would have been well
justified in granting alternative decree for damages,
instead of ordering specific performance which would be
unrealistic and unfair. Under these circumstances, we hold
that the decree for specific performance is inequitable and
unjust to the appellant.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellant shall
not again sell the property for five years. The respondents
will be paid a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs within a period of three
months from to-day. In case the respondents avoid receipt of
the amount within the stipulated time, it would be open to
the appellant to deposit the same to the credit of the
plaintiff in the trial Court. In case of default, the decree
would stand confirmed. No costs.