HC Failed To Consider Conditions Stipulated In Sale Agreement- SC Sets Aside Order Granting Relief For Specific Performance Of Sale Agreement

A Two Judge Bench of Justice M.R Shah and Justice C.T Ravikumar therefore observed that "...the High Court has materially erred in setting aside the concurrent judgment(s) of the learned Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court refusing to pass the decree for specific performance and passing the decree for recovery of Rs. 4 lakhs being double the amount of advance paid."

Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Daya Krishan Sharma appeared for the Respondent.

Going by the background of the case, a sale agreement was entered into between first Appellant as attorney of second Appellant (original defendants) and the Respondent (original plaintiff) for sale of the suit plot in question for a consideration of Rs. 17.61 lacs. When amount of Rs. 2 lakh was paid as earnest money by the Respondent, he instituted the civil suit seeking specific performance of sale agreement and consequential relief of injunction. The Trial Court refused to pass a decree for specific performance of the sale agreement, however, decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 4 lakhs i.e., double of the earnest money paid by the plaintiff in accordance with the contract.

The First Appellate Court also refused to grant the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement. However, the High Court overturned the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court confirmed by the First Appellate Court and consequently, granted the relief of specific performance of the sale agreement by observing that as the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and therefore, he is entitled to the decree for specific performance. Hence, present appeals.

After considering the submissions, the Apex Court noted that as such while allowing the second appeal and overturning the judgments and orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court, the High Court has not framed the substantial question of law, which is required to be framed under Section 100 of the CPC.

Further, the plaintiff being a party to the agreement to sell is bound by the terms and conditions stipulated in the sale agreement, added the Court.

Accordingly, the Bench of the Apex Court clarified that the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court had rightly refused to pass the decree for specific performance of the sale agreement and rightly passed the decree for recovery of Rs. 4 lakhs being double the amount given as an advance which as such was in consonance with the sale agreement.

Cause title: T.D. Vivek Kumar & Anr. Vs. Ranbir Chaudhary

Click here to read / download Judgment