Case Note & Summary
The case involves two civil appeals arising from a judgment of the Madras High Court which reversed the trial court's decree for specific performance of two agreements of sale dated 16.07.1980. The appellant, Venkitalakshmi, as legal representative of the original plaintiff Ponnuswamy Nadar, sought specific performance of agreements for the purchase of suit properties. The original plaintiff had entered into agreements with the defendants on 16.07.1980 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,19,500/- each, paying an advance of Rs.5,000/-. Possession of part of the property was allegedly delivered on 07.11.1980, and time for completion was extended. However, the defendants sold the property to third parties, leading to the filing of suits for specific performance. The defendants contended that the agreements of 16.07.1980 were not genuine and were created to defeat an earlier agreement of sale dated 27.03.1979 entered into by the defendants with the fourth defendant, under which an advance of Rs.60,000/- was paid and possession was handed over. The trial court decreed the suits, but the High Court reversed, holding that the agreements of 16.07.1980 were not genuine and that the plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, noted that the High Court had reappreciated the evidence and recorded concurrent findings of fact that the agreements were not genuine. The Court observed that the earlier agreement of 27.03.1979 and the subsequent sale deeds in favour of third parties indicated that the 1980 agreements were collusive. The Court also noted that the plaintiff had not proved readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract. The Supreme Court held that the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing specific performance was sound and did not warrant interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The appeals were dismissed, and the judgment of the High Court was upheld.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Specific Performance - Discretionary Relief - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the High Court and the trial court that the agreements of sale dated 16.07.1980 were not genuine and were created to defeat an earlier agreement of sale dated 27.03.1979. The Court held that the discretion exercised by the High Court in refusing specific performance was sound and based on proper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 1-8) B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114 - Burden of Proof - Genuineness of Documents - The Court upheld the finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the genuineness of the agreements of sale, as the earlier agreement of 27.03.1979 and subsequent sale deeds in favour of third parties indicated that the 1980 agreements were collusive and lacked consideration. (Paras 2-7) C) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 52 - Lis Pendens - The doctrine of lis pendens was not applicable as the subsequent purchasers were held to be bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the alleged agreements of 1980. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's decree for specific performance and dismissing the suits, and whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of the agreements of sale dated 16.07.1980 warrant interference by the Supreme Court.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the judgment of the Madras High Court which had reversed the trial court's decree for specific performance. The Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the non-genuineness of the agreements of sale dated 16.07.1980 did not warrant interference.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Genuineness of documents
- Bona fide purchaser for value
- Lis pendens
- Readiness and willingness
