Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose out of an agreement dated July 26, 1967 to convey property bearing No.5-9-262, Hyderabad. The respondent Association filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed the respondent's appeal in Civil Appeal No.1/77. The appellant then filed an appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court, which passed an order on September 14, 1994 in Civil Appeal No.279 of 1987. On August 25, 1995, the Supreme Court modified the earlier order to correct typographical mistakes and avoid further litigation. The appellant had contended that though the agreement was for Rs.2,42,000/-, the consideration shown in the agreement was Rs.2,10,000/-, causing her a loss of Rs.20,000/-. She alleged that the agreement was vitiated by fraud and that the respondents were parties to the fraud, so the decree could not be enforced. The court found no force in this contention because the appellant did not deny executing the agreement or reading its contents. It held that at best she was not a consenting party to the actual consideration of Rs.2,10,000/-. The court gave the benefit to the appellant only to the extent of her share of Rs.20,000/- and directed the respondents to pay Rs.10,000/- plus a further sum of Rs.20,000/- towards interest. The order of the High Court was accordingly confirmed with the above modification, and the remaining part of the earlier Supreme Court order remained unchanged.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Correction of Typographical Errors - Inherent Power to Modify Order - Not mentioned Act, Year Not mentioned, Section Not mentioned - The Supreme Court modified its earlier order dated September 14, 1994 to correct typographical mistakes and avoid further litigation between the parties. It directed the relevant part of the order to be read as quoted, confirming the High Court's decree with specific modification. Held that modification was necessary to reflect the actual reasoning and directions. (Para 1) B) Specific Relief - Specific Performance of Agreement to Sell - Fraud and Understated Consideration - Not mentioned Act, Year Not mentioned, Section Not mentioned - The appellant alleged fraud because the agreement showed consideration of Rs.2,10,000/- instead of Rs.2,42,000/-, causing loss of Rs.20,000/-. The court found no force in the contention since the appellant did not deny executing the agreement or reading its contents. It held that at best she was not a consenting party to the actual consideration of Rs.2,10,000/-, and directed respondents to pay Rs.10,000/- plus Rs.20,000/- towards interest, while confirming the High Court decree. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether typographical mistakes in earlier Supreme Court order dated September 14, 1994 should be corrected; whether agreement dated July 26, 1967 was vitiated by fraud due to understatement of consideration from Rs.2,42,000/- to Rs.2,10,000/-
Final Decision
Supreme Court modified earlier order; held no fraud, but gave benefit to appellant to extent of her share of Rs.20,000/-, directed respondents to pay Rs.10,000/- plus Rs.20,000/- towards interest; confirmed High Court order with modification; remaining part unchanged
Law Points
- specific performance
- fraud
- understated consideration
- modification of order
- typographical errors
- consenting party
- benefit of share
