Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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