Civil Appeal No. 9047 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2271 of 2012). Case: K. Prakash Vs B.R. Sampath Kumar. Supreme Court (India)

Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 9047 of 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2271 of 2012)
JudgesM. Yusuf Eqbal and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.
IssueSpecific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 16, 20; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
Judgement DateSeptember 22, 2014
CourtSupreme Court (India)


M. Yusuf Eqbal, J.

  1. Leave granted.

  2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.8.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka whereby Regular First Appeal No. 396 of 2007 of the Respondent was allowed, reversing the judgment of the trial court and dismissing the suit for specific performance of the agreement filed by the Plaintiff-Appellant.

  3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass.

  4. All disputes pertain to a self acquired property of the father of the Respondent. The Respondent's father had four sons and three daughters. On 31.7.1988, transfer of Khata was executed by all brothers and sisters in the name of the Respondent. After the demise of their parents, partition seems to have taken place on 14.12.2000 among brothers and sisters and the property in question is said to have fallen to the share of Defendant, who was required to pay a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- to each of the brothers and sisters in lieu of their shares in the suit house. The Plaintiff had paid Rs. 1,25,000/- to all his brothers and sisters except brother Selva Pillai.

  5. The Respondent herein executed an Agreement for Sale in favour of the Appellant on 15.12.2003 agreeing to sell the schedule property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 16,10,000/-. The schedule property is located at Bangalore, admeasuring 30 x 45 feet with built up area of 1700 sq.ft., consisting of ground floor and first floor including out house. The ground floor is occupied by the Respondent and the first floor is occupied by the Appellant. as a mortgagee. The out-house is occupied by the brother of the Defendant-Respondent namely Sheshadri (as mortgagee). It is relevant to note that an amount of Rs. 3,75,000/- was paid by the Appellant to the Respondent as requested by the Respondent and Sheshadri, who is occupying the out-house portion, has paid Rs. 1,65,000/- as a mortgage consideration to the Respondent while occupying the house. Agreement further reveals that the aforesaid amounts shall be treated as advance amount received by the Respondent under the agreement of sale. The understanding between the parties is that the mortgage consideration need not be repaid by the Respondent to the mortgagees including Sheshadri and his mortgage consideration will be repaid by the prospective vendee i.e. the Appellant. However, on the date of execution of sale agreement, only a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid by the Appellant to the Respondent. Thus, in all a sum of Rs. 5,45,000/- is said to have been paid by the Appellant. The Plaintiff could raise loan of Rs. 3 lakh by securing property. The remaining sale consideration of Rs. 7,65,000/- was payable to the Respondent within one year from the date of the agreement, and in case Respondent fails to comply with any of the conditions in the agreement, he would repay double the amount i.e. Rs. 10,90,000/- to the Appellant.

  6. Although prescribed time was one year, litigation seems to have started between the parties within three months. Repeated complaints were filed by the Appellant against the Respondent before the police authorities. At last, Appellant-Plaintiff moved a suit on 9.7.2004 praying for a decree of specific performance on the ground that the Respondent-Defendant has denied the execution of the sale deed. The sum and substance of the Appellant-plaintiff's case is that the Defendant-Respondent has failed to perform his part of the contract though the Appellant-Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

  7. The Defendant-Respondent denying Agreement Ex. P1 pleaded in his written statement that there being difference of opinion between himself and his brothers, he was in highly disturbed state of mind and when he approached the Appellant for suggestion and help, Appellant took his signature on the alleged agreement of sale and he signed it since he had implicit faith in the Appellant. The Appellant-Plaintiff had assured that B.R. Sheshadri-brother of the Respondent-Defendant, who was living in the out-house, would be made to vacate the premises in the guise of interest being created in favour of Appellant in the property. It has also been contended that the Respondent had no intention to execute the agreement of sale or to sell the property and the agreement was entered into only for the purpose of securing the loan and the property was mortgaged as a security for the loan.

  8. After hearing argument on both sides, the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff-Appellant with a direction to the Defendant-Respondent to execute the absolute sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff, free from all claims and encumbrances, by receiving the balance consideration of Rs. 10,65,000/- and to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit Schedule Property to the Plaintiff. Aggrieved by the decision, the Defendant-Respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court, which passed the impugned order...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT