Supreme Court Overturns High Court’s Decision in Appeal for Specific Performance Suit
The present appeal is a result of the aggrieved and dissatisfied feeling of the original plaintiff with the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Kerala on 11/03/2021 in Regular First Appeal No. 63 of 2009. The High Court had allowed the appeal preferred by the original defendants and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court on 08/18/2008 which decreed the suit for specific performance . After the defendants refused to execute the sale deed and cancelled the agreement, the plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance and return of amount with interest. The trial court decreed the suit for specific performance, directing the plaintiff to pay 25% more than the agreed consideration and deposit the balance within two months. The High Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the decree for specific performance and directed the defendants to pay Rs. 3,10,000/- to the plaintiff.
The present appeal is being made by the original plaintiff who is feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The High Court had set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court for specific performance of the agreement to sell. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is arguing that the High Court has made an error in reversing the decree of specific performance. The counsel argues that the execution of the agreement to sell and receipt of part sale consideration have not been disputed by the defendants and that the plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The counsel also argues that the trial Court did justice by enhancing the sale consideration and the High Court should not have interfered with that decision. The counsel is asking the appeal to be allowed based on these arguments.
Supreme court observed that The execution of the agreement and receipt of part of the sale consideration was not disputed by the defendants. The terms of the agreement specified that the balance of the sale consideration was to be paid within six months and the defendants were to hand over the necessary documents and actual possession of the property after receiving the balance consideration. The defendants initially claimed that the agreement was a forced agreement but later stated that they were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. The trial court, after considering the evidence, decreed the suit for specific performance. The High Court, however, straight away considered Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act and observed that the trial court wrongly exercised discretion in enhancing the amount of sale consideration and directing the plaintiff to pay more than what was mentioned in the agreement.
Supreme Court Held that the trial court’s decision to award specific performance and to require the plaintiff to pay an increased amount than mentioned in the agreement to sell was just. The decision was based on the fact that the agreement was executed, and part of the sale consideration was paid and accepted by the defendants, and that the plaintiff was always ready to perform their part of the contract. the High Court erred in interfering with the trial court’s decision without setting aside the findings recorded by the trial court and that the High Court’s decision is unsustainable on both law and facts.
Haridasan
Versus
Anappath Parakkattu Vasudeva Kurup & Others
