Supreme Court Strikes Down Expulsion of Bihar MLC as Disproportionate, Orders Immediate Reinstatement Private Banks Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Allegation of Forgery is Not Enough: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute When a Case is Made Out for Bail, Courts Should Not Hesitate: Kerala High Court Allows Bail Despite Commercial Quantity of Drugs Seized Retailers Cannot Be Prosecuted for Manufacturer’s Fault" – Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Pesticide Dealers Mere Issuance of a Cheque Does Not Prove Legally Enforceable Debt": Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonor Case Courts Cannot Ignore Urgent Repairs When Public Safety is at Stake: Calcutta High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Bombay High Court Rejects Premature Dismissal of Partition Suit No Substantial Question of Law – High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Proof of Possession: Allahabad High Court Quashes Relief in Land Dispute Section 197 CrPC | Sanction for Prosecution is a Shield, Not a Sword: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against BIS Officer Landlord is the Best Judge of His Needs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction in Favor of Landowner Vijaya Bank TT Scam | Supreme Court Acquits Jeweller in ₹6.7 Crore Vijaya Bank Fraud Case, Orders Return of 205 Gold Bars Procurement Preference for Small Enterprises is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Policy: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of MSMEs Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked Against Interlocutory Orders of Commercial Courts: Orissa High Court Declares Section 8 Bar Absolute Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor Providing Set-Top Boxes to Subscribers Constitutes Sale”: Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT on Tata Play Limited Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

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        

Similar News