Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved a suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff, Deep Chand, against Kare, the owner of a property in Faridabad. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with Kare on December 8, 1986, to purchase land for Rs. 35,000 per acre, paying an advance of Rs. 8,000. However, Kare failed to execute the sale deed by the agreed date, prompting the plaintiff to file suit. Kare contended he was not the real owner and had mortgaged the property. The plaintiff later added Kare's children as defendants after discovering they had alienated the property to the appellants. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing a prior decree in favor of Kare's children. The appellate court reversed this, declaring the plaintiff's agreement genuine and the children's actions collusive. The appellants' appeal was dismissed by the High Court, leading to the current appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's findings, emphasizing the collusive nature of the transactions by Kare's children and the validity of the plaintiff's agreement. The court directed the plaintiff to deposit the remaining sale consideration and mandated the appellants to execute the sale deed within two weeks, failing which the plaintiff could seek court execution. The appeal was disposed of with costs to be borne by the parties.
Headnote
A) Contract Law - Specific Performance - Genuine Agreement - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 20 - The court found that the agreement between the plaintiff and Kare was genuine and that Kare's subsequent family settlement and alienation were collusive to defeat the plaintiff's rights. The appellate court's findings were upheld, emphasizing the validity of the plaintiff's claim for specific performance (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the agreement between the plaintiff and Kare was genuine and whether the subsequent transactions by Kare's children were collusive.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court directed the plaintiff to deposit the remaining sale consideration of Rs. 1,06,170/- and mandated the appellants to execute a sale deed in favor of the plaintiff within two weeks. If they failed, the plaintiff could seek court execution of the sale deed. The court also addressed the mortgage issue, allowing for a refund if the appellants did not produce a release deed.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- collusive transactions
- lis pendens
- genuine agreement
- family settlement
