Supreme Court Allows Appellant in Specific Performance Case — High Court's Order Set Aside. The Trial Court's discretion to extend time for payment was upheld, emphasizing the need to prevent manifest injustice under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

In Favour of Accused
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from a civil appeal concerning the specific performance of a contract for the sale of agricultural land. The appellant filed a suit in 2007 for specific performance based on an agreement executed in 2002. A compromise was reached, and the Trial Court decreed the suit in 2010, allowing the appellant to pay a total consideration of Rs.8,78,500, of which Rs.7,31,000 was paid immediately, with a balance of Rs.1,47,500 due within one month. The appellant sought permission to deposit the balance amount, which was allowed, and the sale deed was executed in January 2011. However, after nearly three years, the first respondent sought cancellation of the sale deed, which the Trial Court dismissed. The High Court later set aside this dismissal, leading to the present appeal. The Supreme Court examined Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which allows for rescission of contracts if the purchaser fails to pay within the stipulated time. The Court noted that the Trial Court had exercised its discretion appropriately in allowing an extension for payment to prevent injustice. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, restoring the Trial Court's order and setting aside the High Court's judgment.

Headnote

A) Specific Relief - Rescission of Contract - Right to Rescind - Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 28 - The vendor has the right to rescind the contract for sale if the purchaser fails to pay the purchase money within the period allowed by the decree. The court retains control over the decree for specific performance and may extend time for payment to prevent manifest injustice. Held that the High Court erred in cancelling the sale deed and setting aside the Trial Court's order (Paras 10-13).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Trial Court's order allowing extension of time for payment of sale consideration.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Trial Court's order permitting the appellant to deposit the balance amount of Rs.1,47,500.

Law Points

  • Specific performance
  • rescission of contract
  • extension of time
  • compromise decree
  • discretion of court
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 LawText (SC) (05) 217

Civil Appeal No. 3794 of 2022

2022-05-09

S. Abdul Nazeer, Vikram Nath

Kishor Ram Lambat, Kashmira Lambat, Sachin Pahwa, Jyoti Thakur, Reeta Puniya, Aaditya A. Pande, Chander Shekhar Ashri, Rahul Chitnis, Ravindra Chingale, Anisha Mathur, Sachin Patil, Geo Joseph, Shwetal Shepal

Kishor Ghanshyamsa Paralikar (Dead)

Balaji Mandir Sansthan Mangrul (Nath) and Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal concerning specific performance of a contract for sale of land.

Remedy Sought

Restoration of the Trial Court's order allowing extension of time for payment.

Filing Reason

High Court set aside the Trial Court's order allowing extension of time.

Previous Decisions

Trial Court allowed extension of time; High Court cancelled the sale deed.

Issues

Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Trial Court's order allowing extension of time for payment.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the Trial Court acted within its discretion to allow extension of time to prevent injustice. The respondent contended that the sale deed should be cancelled due to non-payment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court upheld the discretion of the Trial Court to extend time for payment under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, emphasizing the need to prevent manifest injustice.

Judgment Excerpts

Delay in filing the application for substitution is condoned and abatement is set aside. The High Court has allowed the writ petition and cancelled the sale deed dated 12.01.2011. The Trial Court in its discretion has granted extension of time for depositing the balance of sale consideration assigning cogent reasons.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance in 2007, a compromise was reached in 2010, the Trial Court allowed extension of time in 2015, and the High Court set aside this order in 2018, leading to the appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 28
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Appeals in Temple Management Dispute — Sovereign Rights of Ruler Affirmed.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Amendment of Decree Without Amending Judgment in Execution Proceedings — Order-XX Rule 6 CPC. The Court held that a decree can be amended to correct property description without amending the judgment, as per Order-XX Rule 6...