Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's Decree for Specific Performance in Land Sale Agreement Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 28 April 2023 , In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India set aside the decree for specific performance of a sale agreement issued by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The case, Civil Appeal Nos. 2514-2516 of 2023, involved a dispute between T.D. Vivek Kumar and another party (appellants) against Ranbir Chaudhary (respondent). The judgment was delivered by Justice M.R. Shah, with Justice C.T. Ravikumar concurring.

The dispute revolved around a sale agreement for a plot of land, where the appellants acted as attorneys for the second appellant. The agreement stipulated a sale price of Rs. 17,61,700 and set a tentative date for execution and registration of the sale deed. The respondent paid Rs. 2 lakh as earnest money. However, the appellants resisted the agreement, claiming that if they failed to execute the sale deed, the respondent would be entitled to double the amount paid as an advance.

The respondent filed a civil suit seeking specific performance of the sale agreement and an injunction. The Trial Court, followed by the First Appellate Court, refused to pass a decree for specific performance but awarded the respondent Rs. 4 lakhs (double the earnest money) in accordance with the agreement's terms.

The respondent then appealed to the High Court, which allowed the appeal and granted the decree for specific performance. The High Court relied on the finding that the respondent was ready and willing to perform their part of the contract.

The appellants subsequently filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which directed them to file a review petition before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the review application, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, highlighted that the High Court had failed to frame a substantial question of law as required under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). It further noted that the agreement's clause stated that the buyer would be entitled to double the amount paid as an advance if the seller failed to execute the sale deed within the stipulated time.

Referring to the decision in P. D'Souza vs. Shondrilo Naidu, the Supreme Court held that the named sum in the agreement could be substituted for the performance of the act, allowing the court to refuse a decree for specific performance. Accordingly, the Court concluded that the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court were correct in refusing to pass such a decree and awarding Rs. 4 lakhs as compensation to the respondent.

As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the High Court's order granting specific performance, and restored the judgments and decrees passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

T.D. Vivek Kumar & Anr. vs Ranbir Chaudhary        

Latest Legal News