Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved a long-standing litigation regarding the specific performance of a property sale agreement dated 29/30.07.1980 between the legal heirs of Nand Lal and Kuldeep Singh. The legal heirs, including Rajinder Kumar, Mohinder Kumar Gupta, and others, had entered into an agreement for the sale of property in New Delhi for Rs. 14,00,000, with an earnest payment of Rs. 1,40,000. Rajinder Kumar, claiming to be a minor at the time of the agreement, filed a suit challenging the agreement, which was dismissed but later restored. Kuldeep Singh filed a suit for specific performance, which was decreed ex parte in 1984 due to the defendants' failure to file a written statement. The decree was challenged by the heirs, who argued it was vague and contingent. The court examined whether the decree was executable and whether the application for rescission was properly decided. The court concluded that the decree was executable as the vendors had previously expressed intent to fulfill the agreement and had received part payment. The court also found that the application for rescission was rightly dismissed, as the vendors had not fulfilled their obligations under the agreement. The court emphasized that the decree for specific performance is valid and enforceable, and the vendors could not contest its executability after failing to contest the original suit. The court ultimately upheld the decree and dismissed the appeals.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Executability of Decree - Decree for specific performance is executable despite being ex parte - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order VIII Rule 10 - The court held that the decree for specific performance attained finality and is executable as the vendors had not contested the suit, thus cannot raise objections regarding its executability (Paras 17-23). B) Specific Performance - Rescission of Contract - Application for rescission was properly dismissed - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 28 - The court found that the vendors failed to perform their obligations under the agreement and thus could not seek rescission based on the purchaser's alleged failure to deposit the balance amount (Paras 24-27).
Issue of Consideration
Is the decree executable? Was the application for rescission properly decided?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the decree for specific performance, ruling it executable and dismissing the application for rescission, affirming that the vendors could not contest the decree after failing to defend the original suit.
Law Points
- specific performance
- equitable relief
- executability of decree
- rescission of contract
- Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- Specific Relief Act
- 1963
