http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: REVAPPA GURUSIDDAPPA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THAKUBSI MADHAVARAO PATIL & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       04/09/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. FAIZAN UDDIN (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      This special  1eave petition has been fi1ed against the remand order  of the   High Court of Karnataka made on March 25,1996 in  R.S.A. No.196/90.  The admitted position is that the first  respondent had entered into an agreement on March 11,1983 to  puchase  3  acres  28  gunthas  of  land  for  a consideration of  Rs.12,000/- and  he had  paid Rs.2000/- as earnest money.  The petitioner-second defendant puchased the self-same property  on july  8, 1983  for a consideration of Rs.6000/- and  had  the  sale  deed  registered.  The  first respondent filed  the suit  for  specific  performance.  The trial Court  finding that  the petitoner  had purchased  the property and  it would  cause irreparable  damage to  him if decree for  specific performance being would be granted, had derected refund  of the  earnest money  with  interest.  The first respondent carried the matter in appeal. The appellate Court set aside the decree of the trial Court on the finding that the  petitioner had not pleaded that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the prior agreement of sale. It  also had  held that  the refusal to grant rlief of specific performance  on that  ground was  not valid in law. Accordingly, it  reversed the  decree of the trial Court and granted specific performance. In the second appeal, the High Court while upholding the pleading of the respondent that he was ready  and willing  to perform his part of the agreement and that  he had  led the  evidence in that behalf, remitted the matter  to the  district Court  to frame an issue on the basis of  a previous  judgment and  the issue in this behalf was required  to  be  settled.  We  need  not  go  into  the correctness of  the remand  order since the first respondent has not  filed any  SLP against  that order.  Suffice it  to state that the petitioner has no cause for grievance in this matter for remanding the matter. In view of the finding that he is  a subsequent  purchaser, as  found by the trial Court itself, and  that the  High Court has remitted the matter to frame the  issue whether  the first respondent was ready and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

willing to  perform his  part of the contract and decide the matter on the basis of the evidence already on record, we do not think  that there  is any  error of law committed by the High Court in remitting the matter.      The SLP is accordingly dismissed.