IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2759 OF 2002

Karturi Prasad Rao                 ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Karturi Surya Kanthamma               ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for specific  

performance of agreement dated 29th May, 1976 whereby the  

defendant-respondent agreed to purchase 3 acres and 6-1/2  

guntas of land for a sum of Rs.42,000/-.  The appellant  

claimed that even though he was always ready and willing  

to perform his part of the contract, the respondent did  

not pay the balance amount and did not get the sale deed  

executed.  By judgment dated 30th June, 1988, the trial  

court decreed the suit and directed the respondent to pay  

to the appellant Rs.45,105/- together with interest at the  

rate of sixteen per cent per annum from the date of suit  

till the date of decree and interest at the rate of six  

per cent per annum from the date of decree till the date  

of payment on the amount of Rs.31,000/-.  The trial court  

further  directed the  respondent to  obtain sale  deed in  

terms of the agreement within a period of three months.

...2/-

- 2 -  

The respondent challenged the judgment and decree  

of the trial court by filing an appeal.  She also applied  

for the interim relief, but her prayer for staying the  

judgment and decree of the trial court was not granted.  

Notwithstanding  this,  the  respondent  neither  paid  the  

amount in terms of the decree of the trial court nor made  

any attempt to get the sale deed executed.  Therefore, the  

appellant  filed an  application under  Section 28  of the  

Specific  Relief  Act,  1963  [for  short,  “the  Act”]  for  

rescinding the contract and for issuance of a direction to  

the respondent to deliver possession of the suit property  

to  him.   The  latter  contested  the  application.   After  

hearing the parties, the trial court passed order dated 3rd  

August, 1993, whereby it directed that the agreement dated  

29th May, 1976 shall stand rescinded.  The trial court also  

directed the respondent to restore possession of the suit  

property to the appellant within a period of two months  

from the date of the order.

The  appeal  filed  by  the  respondent  against  the  

judgment  and  decree  dated  30th June,  1988  was  finally  

dismissed by the Ist Additional District Judge at Raichur  

vide  judgment  dated  29th September,  1997.   The  lower  

appellate  court  confirmed  the  findings  recorded  by  the  

trial court on the issue of readiness and willingness of  

the appellant to perform his part of the contract and that  

the respondent neither paid the balance amount in terms of  

the agreement nor made any effort to obtain the sale deed.  

The lower appellate court also took cognizance of order  

dated 3rd August, 1993 passed by the trial court and the  

fact that the said order has not been challenged by the  

respondent.

...2/-

- 3 -  

Feeling  aggrieved  by  appellate  judgment,  the  

respondent filed second appeal under Section 100 of the  

Code of Civil Procedure, which was registered as RSA No.  

12/1998.  By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed  

the  second  appeal,  set  aside  the  decree  passed  by  the  

trial court to the extent it contained a direction to the  

respondent to pay interest on Rs.45,105/- and substituted  

the same by directing the respondent to pay interest at  

the rate of sixteen per cent per annum from the date of  

suit till the date of decree.  The High Court granted  

three months’ time for making the payment and directed the  

appellant to hand over possession of the suit property to  

the  respondent  and  execute  sale  deed  within  a  month.  

Hence, this appeal by special leave.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and  

carefully gone through the impugned judgment as also the  

judgments  and  decrees  of  the  trial  court  and  lower  

appellate court.  In our opinion, the High Court committed  

grave error by interfering with the concurrent findings of  

fact  recorded  by  the  two  courts,  after  threadbare  

consideration  of  the  factual  matrix  of  the  case  and  

evaluation of evidence produced by the parties, that even  

though  the  appellant  herein  was  ready  and  willing  to  

perform his part of the contract, the respondent herein  

neither paid the balance amount nor made any effort to get  

the sale deed executed and registered.  In the impugned  

judgment  the  High  Court  has  nowhere  found  that  the  

findings  recorded  by  the  courts  below  were  perverse.  

Therefore, there was no occasion for it to upset those  

findings.   

...4/-

- 4 -  

We are further of the view that the High Court  

committed serious error in observing that order dated 3rd  

August, 1993 passed by the trial court under Section 28 of  

the Act, was subject to the final judgment of the appeal  

preferred  by  the  respondent  against  the  judgment  and  

decree of the trial court.  The High Court ought to have  

taken  note  of  the  fact  that  in  the  absence  of  any  

challenge to order dated 3rd August, 1993, the direction of  

the trial court that the contract shall stand rescinded  

became final and, in that view of the matter, no decree  

could  have  been  passed  in  favour  of  the  respondent  

enabling her to secure possession of the suit property by  

paying  the balance  consideration and  that too  after 26  

years of execution of the agreement of sale.

Accordingly,  the  appeal  is  allowed,  impugned  

judgment rendered by the High Court in second appeal is  

set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court,  

which  was  confirmed  by  the  lower  appellate  court,  is  

restored.

No costs.

......................J.             [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.             [G.S. SINGHVI]

......................J.             [AFTAB ALAM]

New Delhi, September 03, 2009.