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

PETITIONER: SOHAN SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SARWAN SINGH & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       19/08/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   508        1996 SCALE  (6)253

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This special  leave petition has been filed against the judgment and  order of  the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh made  in Second  Appeal No.333/96.  The  admitted position  is   that  the  petitioner  had  entered  Anto  an agreement on  June 14,  1986 for  sale of land admeasuring 6 Kanals 13  marlas for consideration of Rs.85,000/- per killa and received  Rs.6,000/- as earnest money and balance amount was agreed  to be paid on registration. The sale deed was to be executed by July 15, 1987. Since the petitioner failed to execute the  sale deed,  the respondent  filed the  suit for specific performance. All the courts below have concurrently found, as a fact, that respondent had presented a bank draft for the  balance consideration of Rs.64,000/- at the time of registration and  that the petitioner refused to receive the same. Bank  draft is  as good a payment of the consideration as cash.  The petitioner  committed breach of the conditions in the  performance of the contract. Accordingly, the decree for specific  performance was  granted. It  is contended for the petitioner  that payment  by way  of bank  draft is  not payment of  the consideration  by cash  at the  time of  the registration of  sale deed  by Sub-Registrar. Therefore, the petitioner committed  no breach of any part of the contract. On the other hand, the respondent-plaintiff committed breach of contract  in not paying cash consideration at the time of registration in  terms of  the agreement.  The courts  below have committed  manifest error  of law in decreeing the suit for specific  performance of  the contract. We find no force in the  contention. The  payment by  way of bank draft is as good a  payment as  cash-in-hand. Instead  of  bringing  the cash, he  had brought bank draft. Under these circumstances, the demand  for payment  of cash  by the petitioner would be had from the bank who would honour the same on behalf of the respondent. The  petitioner rightly presented the bank draft at the  time of  negotiation which  is legal  tender of cash payment to  the vendor/petitioner. The refusal for receiving

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

bank draft  at the  time of  registration of the petitioner, therefore, is  a breach  of the  covenant in  terms  of  the agreement. The  courts below have not committed any manifest error of  law to  decree the  suit for  specific performance warranting interference.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.