Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sharadchandra Yadaorao Kashettiwar, filed a second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 08/07/2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Yavatmal in Civil Appeal No.143/2003, which reversed the judgment and decree dated 19/11/2003 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division Kalamb in Regular Civil Suit No.01/2003. The appellant had originally filed a suit for specific performance of a contract to purchase 2.43 hectares of land out of Gat No.93 from the respondent, Laxman s/o Antuji Nagtode, for a consideration of Rs.66,000/-. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellant, granting specific performance. The respondent appealed, and the appellate court reversed the decree, holding that granting specific performance would cause hardship to the respondent as he would become landless. The appellant then filed the present second appeal. The High Court framed three substantial questions of law: whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the decree solely on the ground of hardship; whether the appellate court could interfere with the discretionary relief granted by the trial court on the ground that the defendant would be rendered landless; and whether the appellate court can rightly interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court under the Specific Relief Act. The High Court held that the appellate court was not justified in reversing the decree. The plaintiff had proved his case on all counts, and the defendant had voluntarily agreed to sell the land and received consideration. The appellate court's approach was erroneous as it did not consider that the defendant had voluntarily entered into the contract. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellate court's judgment, and restored the trial court's decree for specific performance.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act - Specific Performance - Hardship - Section 20 Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The appellate court reversed the trial court's decree for specific performance solely on the ground that it would cause hardship to the defendant as he would become landless. The High Court held that the appellate court was not justified in interfering with the discretionary relief granted by the trial court, as the plaintiff had proved his case on all counts. The appellate court's approach was erroneous as it did not consider that the defendant had voluntarily agreed to sell the land and received consideration. (Paras 3-10) B) Specific Relief Act - Appellate Court's Interference - Discretion - Section 20 Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The appellate court can interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court only if the trial court has exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely, or has ignored settled principles of law. In the present case, the trial court had properly exercised its discretion, and the appellate court's reversal on the ground of hardship alone was not justified. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the decree for specific performance solely on the ground that it would cause hardship and loss to the defendant, and whether the appellate court can interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court under the Specific Relief Act.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree of the appellate court dated 08/07/2005 set aside. Judgment and decree of the trial court dated 19/11/2003 restored. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- hardship
- discretion of trial court
- interference by appellate court
- Specific Relief Act
- 1963
